The city commissioned a viability study that was discussed earlier this week at a joint BEDC-City Council Meeting.
According to the study:
“The Cannery Park site includes 66 acres of the remaining 138.9 acre vacant land supply currently designated for business and industrial park development in the City of Davis 2010 General Plan, or about half the total supply. It also represents the largest infill parcel considered by the 2013 General Plan Housing Element Update Steering Committee and Davis Planning Commission for housing possibilities.”
In terms of feasibility the reported offered the following:
“Although the Cannery Park site is a viable and competitive location for business and park development, feasibility of development at the site will be driven in large part by the specific definition of entitlements for this property. This definition is policy driven and requires consideration of the types of uses, intensity of development, and development controls that the City of Davis will permit at the Cannery Park site.”
“Currently, the Cannery Park site is partially entitled and it is unclear to what extent the site’s current “Planned Development #01-00 (Industrial)” zoning classification adopted in 2000 can accommodate the business park market opportunities identified in this report.”
“Entitlements with highly restrictive, discretionary, and unclear regulatory controls will limit the site’s capture/absorption of business park market opportunities and will negatively impact project feasibility.”
This is a key point that the report makes, because apparently the zoning for this site is unclear and incomplete and that may be contributing to some of the problems that they have had finding businesses to come in.
Thus the report suggests:
“Business park development at Cannery Park can be best facilitated by clear rules of development that accommodate business and tenant needs while providing economic incentives for the development to occur.”
The study looks at five different scenarios of which we will look at three.
“Scenario 1 -Basic Business Park/No Residential. This scenario assumes that Cannery Park is developed as an 862,000 square foot basic business park that is similar in form, character, and tenanting to the overall Davis business park market. This scenario assumes that the site is entitled to compete for 100 percent of the demand for Davis business park space by permitting occupancy by all types of firms currently in office and flex space in Davis. It would have a 16 year projected buildout and assumes a 55,000 square foot annual absorption rate inclusive of ancillary support uses.”
“Scenario 4 -High Tech Business Park/No Residential. This scenario assumes that Cannery Park is entirely developed as an 862,000 square foot high tech business park. This scenario assumes that the site is entitled to compete for about 40 percent of the market demand for Davis business park space by permitting occupancy by high tech uses while not allowing most other uses. This scenario is considered infeasible given its projected 39 year build out period and a 22,000 square foot annual absorption rate (inclusive of ancillary support uses).”
“Proposed Lewis Planned Communities Plan. This scenario summarizes the proposed Lewis plan for Cannery Park as provided by Lewis Planned Communities to ESG. This Plan assumes 225,000 square feet of business park space and 610 residential units. It is unknown to what extent the business park space includes (or does not include) ancillary support uses. This scenario assumes that the site is entitled to compete for 100 percent of market demand. Lewis estimates that this scenario would have 5 to 8 year buildout based on a 28,000 to 49,000 square feet annual absorption rate.”
The report goes on to suggest the following impacts of those scenarios.
“Scenario 1 would generate the most jobs (2,586) and business activity with 862,000 square feet of building area and no residential. Annual business revenues are estimated at $301,700,000.”
“In contrast, the proposed Lewis Planned Communities plan with 225,000 square feet of building area and 610 residential units would generate the least jobs and business activity of these scenarios. Its annual business revenues are estimated at $78,750,000.”
“Scenario 4, the high tech business park with no residential, is excluded from this discussion because it is considered infeasible.”
“Scenario 1 would generate fiscal surpluses because fiscal costs to service business park development are typically a fraction of fiscal revenues since employees generally utilize a smaller percentage of governmental services than residents.”
“The fiscal impacts of Scenario 3, which would generate 1,034 jobs and business activity in combination with 500 residential units, and the proposed Lewis Planned Communities plan, which would generate 600 to 850 jobs and business activity in combination with 610 residential units, cannot be evaluated at this point because they both would include significant residential development.”
Discussion and Commentary
The meeting on Monday generated no action, but there was a clear consensus from the BEDC Commission that the mixed-use model was the most appropriate model to move forward with. Indeed there is much to lend itself to Lewis’ plan for the property. The goal is to provide workforce housing in the affordable range. This would be accomplished through a mix of smaller units, larger amounts of open space and shared space, and then about 20 percent of the property being used for a business park.
The breakdown of 80-20 is interesting because they suggest they would generate on the low end about 600 jobs in combination with about 610 residential units, roughly a one-to-one ratio. While there would likely not be overlap between the jobs and the residents, in theory it would make it feasible for less commute and therefore make the project more environmentally sustainable.
The other finding of interest here is that they found that the high tech business park with no residential to be infeasible. The study projects that it would require a roughly 40 year build out period that does not fit in with the goals of the community. Large users, in addition, according to staff want distance from residential and community uses.
The question now as the council decided to bring back the item before the council on a future Tuesday night is what the council will want to do and how quickly they want to go forward with this project.
The community still needs to assess whether they think a plan with 610 residential units and a corresponding number of jobs in the business park is the optimal use for the property.
The other key factor is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the adjacent Covell Village. There are some on the council that believe that the two sites need to be planned concurrently. However, the people at Lewis do not necessarily concur with that assessment. They believe that there are separate issues on each site that make them very different planning challenges. Lewis is within the city limits, it is paved over and thus the issue of agricultural land and the issue of flood abatement are not there. There is no Measure J requirement for Lewis.
That said, obstacles remain. A plan that would include 600 new residences and 600 jobs will have a huge impact on traffic on Covell Blvd that must be dealt with. From their standpoint, the two sites can be dealt with separately, their plan calls for a community open space park to border the Lewis property on the East. Should a future development go there, the park could be expanded and adapted to accommodate increased needs, but it would not necessitate such a development. The goal seems to be to neither preclude nor require future development.
Nevertheless the future of Lewis seems very uncertain at this moment. The process has not moved forward very rapidly. The council called for a future discussion, but that future discussion may be in the distant rather than near future. In the meantime there has been no EIR planned and the project remains somewhat in flux.
We will see in the coming months what the future holds for the largest undeveloped parcel within the city limits.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“…the adjacent Covell Village.”
DPD: you write as if this development were a “done deal,” when actually it was already voted out of existence. A 60-40 proportion of voters in Davis voted this sucker down in a Measure J vote several years ago.
Despite the fact that supporters on Election Eve at Yes On Covell Village headquarters, led in singing by Mike Corbett and Steve Souza, linked arms and sang “We Shall Overcome” to show their solidarity with Covell Village developers.
Irony piled upon cynical irony. So I wish you’d stop writing as if Covell Village existed or is going to exist. Because its supporters have to be the most cynical politicos this side of the State Capitol in Sacramento. And definitely anti-the best interests of average Davisites.
“…the adjacent Covell Village.”
DPD: you write as if this development were a “done deal,” when actually it was already voted out of existence. A 60-40 proportion of voters in Davis voted this sucker down in a Measure J vote several years ago.
Despite the fact that supporters on Election Eve at Yes On Covell Village headquarters, led in singing by Mike Corbett and Steve Souza, linked arms and sang “We Shall Overcome” to show their solidarity with Covell Village developers.
Irony piled upon cynical irony. So I wish you’d stop writing as if Covell Village existed or is going to exist. Because its supporters have to be the most cynical politicos this side of the State Capitol in Sacramento. And definitely anti-the best interests of average Davisites.
“…the adjacent Covell Village.”
DPD: you write as if this development were a “done deal,” when actually it was already voted out of existence. A 60-40 proportion of voters in Davis voted this sucker down in a Measure J vote several years ago.
Despite the fact that supporters on Election Eve at Yes On Covell Village headquarters, led in singing by Mike Corbett and Steve Souza, linked arms and sang “We Shall Overcome” to show their solidarity with Covell Village developers.
Irony piled upon cynical irony. So I wish you’d stop writing as if Covell Village existed or is going to exist. Because its supporters have to be the most cynical politicos this side of the State Capitol in Sacramento. And definitely anti-the best interests of average Davisites.
“…the adjacent Covell Village.”
DPD: you write as if this development were a “done deal,” when actually it was already voted out of existence. A 60-40 proportion of voters in Davis voted this sucker down in a Measure J vote several years ago.
Despite the fact that supporters on Election Eve at Yes On Covell Village headquarters, led in singing by Mike Corbett and Steve Souza, linked arms and sang “We Shall Overcome” to show their solidarity with Covell Village developers.
Irony piled upon cynical irony. So I wish you’d stop writing as if Covell Village existed or is going to exist. Because its supporters have to be the most cynical politicos this side of the State Capitol in Sacramento. And definitely anti-the best interests of average Davisites.
Certainly not my intention to imply the development already exists or that it is inevitable. My personal belief is that the site does not need to be developed during the next 20 year period. However the site is there and that is an issue for the development of adjacent site, hence my discussion.
Certainly not my intention to imply the development already exists or that it is inevitable. My personal belief is that the site does not need to be developed during the next 20 year period. However the site is there and that is an issue for the development of adjacent site, hence my discussion.
Certainly not my intention to imply the development already exists or that it is inevitable. My personal belief is that the site does not need to be developed during the next 20 year period. However the site is there and that is an issue for the development of adjacent site, hence my discussion.
Certainly not my intention to imply the development already exists or that it is inevitable. My personal belief is that the site does not need to be developed during the next 20 year period. However the site is there and that is an issue for the development of adjacent site, hence my discussion.
Mixed use of housing and small office/business park makes the most sense for the Lewis Cannery/former Hunt Wesson site. The No on Measure X campaign supported housing for this site and had this position in the literature.
The current proposal of 2/3 housing and 1/3 office/business park is a result of community input from at least four community meetings. The pattern of the proposal is set up so that it can be done independent of the Covell Village site. This site, unlike Covell Village, is within the City limits so we would get far more property tax than the Covell Village site which is in the County. Also, this offers an opportunity offer some jobs as well as workforce housing. This option also makes clear that we don’t need to pursue paving over almost 400 acres of primarily prime ag land at the Covell Village site.
Mixed use of housing and small office/business park makes the most sense for the Lewis Cannery/former Hunt Wesson site. The No on Measure X campaign supported housing for this site and had this position in the literature.
The current proposal of 2/3 housing and 1/3 office/business park is a result of community input from at least four community meetings. The pattern of the proposal is set up so that it can be done independent of the Covell Village site. This site, unlike Covell Village, is within the City limits so we would get far more property tax than the Covell Village site which is in the County. Also, this offers an opportunity offer some jobs as well as workforce housing. This option also makes clear that we don’t need to pursue paving over almost 400 acres of primarily prime ag land at the Covell Village site.
Mixed use of housing and small office/business park makes the most sense for the Lewis Cannery/former Hunt Wesson site. The No on Measure X campaign supported housing for this site and had this position in the literature.
The current proposal of 2/3 housing and 1/3 office/business park is a result of community input from at least four community meetings. The pattern of the proposal is set up so that it can be done independent of the Covell Village site. This site, unlike Covell Village, is within the City limits so we would get far more property tax than the Covell Village site which is in the County. Also, this offers an opportunity offer some jobs as well as workforce housing. This option also makes clear that we don’t need to pursue paving over almost 400 acres of primarily prime ag land at the Covell Village site.
Mixed use of housing and small office/business park makes the most sense for the Lewis Cannery/former Hunt Wesson site. The No on Measure X campaign supported housing for this site and had this position in the literature.
The current proposal of 2/3 housing and 1/3 office/business park is a result of community input from at least four community meetings. The pattern of the proposal is set up so that it can be done independent of the Covell Village site. This site, unlike Covell Village, is within the City limits so we would get far more property tax than the Covell Village site which is in the County. Also, this offers an opportunity offer some jobs as well as workforce housing. This option also makes clear that we don’t need to pursue paving over almost 400 acres of primarily prime ag land at the Covell Village site.
Putting homes on this site is a terrible idea. It is ideal for industry. That is its historical use and we should keep it that way.
Putting homes on this site is a terrible idea. It is ideal for industry. That is its historical use and we should keep it that way.
Putting homes on this site is a terrible idea. It is ideal for industry. That is its historical use and we should keep it that way.
Putting homes on this site is a terrible idea. It is ideal for industry. That is its historical use and we should keep it that way.
But then where should the housing go. If you do economic development on the site it just adds more jobs when housing is still overpriced and unavailable in Davis.
Housing First
But then where should the housing go. If you do economic development on the site it just adds more jobs when housing is still overpriced and unavailable in Davis.
Housing First
But then where should the housing go. If you do economic development on the site it just adds more jobs when housing is still overpriced and unavailable in Davis.
Housing First
But then where should the housing go. If you do economic development on the site it just adds more jobs when housing is still overpriced and unavailable in Davis.
Housing First
Locate the re-entry facility there. No loss of farmland or habitat. Existing infrastructure, transportation systems, provides jobs and it even has a fence already.
Locate the re-entry facility there. No loss of farmland or habitat. Existing infrastructure, transportation systems, provides jobs and it even has a fence already.
Locate the re-entry facility there. No loss of farmland or habitat. Existing infrastructure, transportation systems, provides jobs and it even has a fence already.
Locate the re-entry facility there. No loss of farmland or habitat. Existing infrastructure, transportation systems, provides jobs and it even has a fence already.
The reason the high-tech industrial won’t work there is a deliberate effort by Lewis “Homes”. You have to recall that Tim Lewis builds houses, not industrial parks.
It is a fact that Lewis Homes were approached by a consortium of high-tech green energy companies in 2004 to acquire all of the former Cannery buildings. The buildings were generally in ideal condition for the proposal. In addition, the tank farm was perfect for biodiesel production. Tim Lewis was horrified as this plan would utilize the rail spur, the tanks and buildings and have no requirement for making rows of houses.
Don’t let some mouthpiece for Lewis say the buildings were falling apart or some sort of fire hazard. They were reviewed by several engineers and judged in ideal condition. Lewis realized that his plan for houses would be shot if the plan made it to the city council so he decided to bulldoze everything to eliminate the high-tech green energy park as an option.
The reason Option 4 is being considered “infeasible” is a direct result of a very cynical effort by Tim Lewis to eliminate the option. If the current property owner is given a free rezoning after costing the city a wonderful opportunity to be the hub for green energy research, it would be a shame.
Let them sell the property to someone who will work with the city and the appropriate zoning to build the green energy park that is right for the site.
The reason the high-tech industrial won’t work there is a deliberate effort by Lewis “Homes”. You have to recall that Tim Lewis builds houses, not industrial parks.
It is a fact that Lewis Homes were approached by a consortium of high-tech green energy companies in 2004 to acquire all of the former Cannery buildings. The buildings were generally in ideal condition for the proposal. In addition, the tank farm was perfect for biodiesel production. Tim Lewis was horrified as this plan would utilize the rail spur, the tanks and buildings and have no requirement for making rows of houses.
Don’t let some mouthpiece for Lewis say the buildings were falling apart or some sort of fire hazard. They were reviewed by several engineers and judged in ideal condition. Lewis realized that his plan for houses would be shot if the plan made it to the city council so he decided to bulldoze everything to eliminate the high-tech green energy park as an option.
The reason Option 4 is being considered “infeasible” is a direct result of a very cynical effort by Tim Lewis to eliminate the option. If the current property owner is given a free rezoning after costing the city a wonderful opportunity to be the hub for green energy research, it would be a shame.
Let them sell the property to someone who will work with the city and the appropriate zoning to build the green energy park that is right for the site.
The reason the high-tech industrial won’t work there is a deliberate effort by Lewis “Homes”. You have to recall that Tim Lewis builds houses, not industrial parks.
It is a fact that Lewis Homes were approached by a consortium of high-tech green energy companies in 2004 to acquire all of the former Cannery buildings. The buildings were generally in ideal condition for the proposal. In addition, the tank farm was perfect for biodiesel production. Tim Lewis was horrified as this plan would utilize the rail spur, the tanks and buildings and have no requirement for making rows of houses.
Don’t let some mouthpiece for Lewis say the buildings were falling apart or some sort of fire hazard. They were reviewed by several engineers and judged in ideal condition. Lewis realized that his plan for houses would be shot if the plan made it to the city council so he decided to bulldoze everything to eliminate the high-tech green energy park as an option.
The reason Option 4 is being considered “infeasible” is a direct result of a very cynical effort by Tim Lewis to eliminate the option. If the current property owner is given a free rezoning after costing the city a wonderful opportunity to be the hub for green energy research, it would be a shame.
Let them sell the property to someone who will work with the city and the appropriate zoning to build the green energy park that is right for the site.
The reason the high-tech industrial won’t work there is a deliberate effort by Lewis “Homes”. You have to recall that Tim Lewis builds houses, not industrial parks.
It is a fact that Lewis Homes were approached by a consortium of high-tech green energy companies in 2004 to acquire all of the former Cannery buildings. The buildings were generally in ideal condition for the proposal. In addition, the tank farm was perfect for biodiesel production. Tim Lewis was horrified as this plan would utilize the rail spur, the tanks and buildings and have no requirement for making rows of houses.
Don’t let some mouthpiece for Lewis say the buildings were falling apart or some sort of fire hazard. They were reviewed by several engineers and judged in ideal condition. Lewis realized that his plan for houses would be shot if the plan made it to the city council so he decided to bulldoze everything to eliminate the high-tech green energy park as an option.
The reason Option 4 is being considered “infeasible” is a direct result of a very cynical effort by Tim Lewis to eliminate the option. If the current property owner is given a free rezoning after costing the city a wonderful opportunity to be the hub for green energy research, it would be a shame.
Let them sell the property to someone who will work with the city and the appropriate zoning to build the green energy park that is right for the site.
Why not use this parcel for residential?..it doesn’t need a Measure J vote along with Whitcomb’s
“arm being twisted” by the CC to develop a portion of his CV property for business high-tech , NOT residential. Direct access onto Poleline or an improved county road to the north would be much better than the Cannery property’s only exit/entrance on to Covell Blvd.
Why not use this parcel for residential?..it doesn’t need a Measure J vote along with Whitcomb’s
“arm being twisted” by the CC to develop a portion of his CV property for business high-tech , NOT residential. Direct access onto Poleline or an improved county road to the north would be much better than the Cannery property’s only exit/entrance on to Covell Blvd.
Why not use this parcel for residential?..it doesn’t need a Measure J vote along with Whitcomb’s
“arm being twisted” by the CC to develop a portion of his CV property for business high-tech , NOT residential. Direct access onto Poleline or an improved county road to the north would be much better than the Cannery property’s only exit/entrance on to Covell Blvd.
Why not use this parcel for residential?..it doesn’t need a Measure J vote along with Whitcomb’s
“arm being twisted” by the CC to develop a portion of his CV property for business high-tech , NOT residential. Direct access onto Poleline or an improved county road to the north would be much better than the Cannery property’s only exit/entrance on to Covell Blvd.
Turn this property into ‘Buzzword Villiage’.
BV will feature eco-conscious green-living, with walkable neighborhoods, pedestrian scale design, and zero-waste construction. Residents, or ‘global citizens’ will be able to practice semi-vegan localvore living, in LEED Platinum buildings with rainwater catchments and passive solar heating. Edible landscaping will be available for our homeless, or ‘housing challenged’ residents, and limited equity co-op affordable multi-cultural multi-faith housing will be located on the Villiage Green. Bike Share and Car Share will be available for a small fee, or ‘convenience payment’. A portion of profit from each house sold will go to make puppies softer and feed starving people somewhere else or possibly toward cancer treatment for sun-dappled supermodels. Homeowner’s choice.
But it will get voted down because of fears about traffic impacts. So a re-entry facility will be put there, instead.
Turn this property into ‘Buzzword Villiage’.
BV will feature eco-conscious green-living, with walkable neighborhoods, pedestrian scale design, and zero-waste construction. Residents, or ‘global citizens’ will be able to practice semi-vegan localvore living, in LEED Platinum buildings with rainwater catchments and passive solar heating. Edible landscaping will be available for our homeless, or ‘housing challenged’ residents, and limited equity co-op affordable multi-cultural multi-faith housing will be located on the Villiage Green. Bike Share and Car Share will be available for a small fee, or ‘convenience payment’. A portion of profit from each house sold will go to make puppies softer and feed starving people somewhere else or possibly toward cancer treatment for sun-dappled supermodels. Homeowner’s choice.
But it will get voted down because of fears about traffic impacts. So a re-entry facility will be put there, instead.
Turn this property into ‘Buzzword Villiage’.
BV will feature eco-conscious green-living, with walkable neighborhoods, pedestrian scale design, and zero-waste construction. Residents, or ‘global citizens’ will be able to practice semi-vegan localvore living, in LEED Platinum buildings with rainwater catchments and passive solar heating. Edible landscaping will be available for our homeless, or ‘housing challenged’ residents, and limited equity co-op affordable multi-cultural multi-faith housing will be located on the Villiage Green. Bike Share and Car Share will be available for a small fee, or ‘convenience payment’. A portion of profit from each house sold will go to make puppies softer and feed starving people somewhere else or possibly toward cancer treatment for sun-dappled supermodels. Homeowner’s choice.
But it will get voted down because of fears about traffic impacts. So a re-entry facility will be put there, instead.
Turn this property into ‘Buzzword Villiage’.
BV will feature eco-conscious green-living, with walkable neighborhoods, pedestrian scale design, and zero-waste construction. Residents, or ‘global citizens’ will be able to practice semi-vegan localvore living, in LEED Platinum buildings with rainwater catchments and passive solar heating. Edible landscaping will be available for our homeless, or ‘housing challenged’ residents, and limited equity co-op affordable multi-cultural multi-faith housing will be located on the Villiage Green. Bike Share and Car Share will be available for a small fee, or ‘convenience payment’. A portion of profit from each house sold will go to make puppies softer and feed starving people somewhere else or possibly toward cancer treatment for sun-dappled supermodels. Homeowner’s choice.
But it will get voted down because of fears about traffic impacts. So a re-entry facility will be put there, instead.
Some of you appear uninterested in having an honest policy discussion.
For those of you who oppose housing on this site–where do we put housing? How do you account for the viability study?
Some of you appear uninterested in having an honest policy discussion.
For those of you who oppose housing on this site–where do we put housing? How do you account for the viability study?
Some of you appear uninterested in having an honest policy discussion.
For those of you who oppose housing on this site–where do we put housing? How do you account for the viability study?
Some of you appear uninterested in having an honest policy discussion.
For those of you who oppose housing on this site–where do we put housing? How do you account for the viability study?
The viability study supports the use of the property for business – and the consultant stated at the meeting that it was a very good site for a business park. Without this property, available commercial land will be used up within 7-8 years.
Housing? What about the huge UCD project in west davis? Don’t you think it will alleviate some of the demand for housing in Davis? Of course it will.
I don’t get why people keep talking about the need for more housing…property values are already falling. Also, is there no realization that Davis can’t just keep growing? At some point, there just won’t be land available. I don’t get why some people don’t seem to think that its important to have people work in town…jobs = +$ for the city. Housing = costs.
Davis shouldn’t just be a bedroom community…it is essential to keep professional/intellectual based businesses in town.
The viability study supports the use of the property for business – and the consultant stated at the meeting that it was a very good site for a business park. Without this property, available commercial land will be used up within 7-8 years.
Housing? What about the huge UCD project in west davis? Don’t you think it will alleviate some of the demand for housing in Davis? Of course it will.
I don’t get why people keep talking about the need for more housing…property values are already falling. Also, is there no realization that Davis can’t just keep growing? At some point, there just won’t be land available. I don’t get why some people don’t seem to think that its important to have people work in town…jobs = +$ for the city. Housing = costs.
Davis shouldn’t just be a bedroom community…it is essential to keep professional/intellectual based businesses in town.
The viability study supports the use of the property for business – and the consultant stated at the meeting that it was a very good site for a business park. Without this property, available commercial land will be used up within 7-8 years.
Housing? What about the huge UCD project in west davis? Don’t you think it will alleviate some of the demand for housing in Davis? Of course it will.
I don’t get why people keep talking about the need for more housing…property values are already falling. Also, is there no realization that Davis can’t just keep growing? At some point, there just won’t be land available. I don’t get why some people don’t seem to think that its important to have people work in town…jobs = +$ for the city. Housing = costs.
Davis shouldn’t just be a bedroom community…it is essential to keep professional/intellectual based businesses in town.
The viability study supports the use of the property for business – and the consultant stated at the meeting that it was a very good site for a business park. Without this property, available commercial land will be used up within 7-8 years.
Housing? What about the huge UCD project in west davis? Don’t you think it will alleviate some of the demand for housing in Davis? Of course it will.
I don’t get why people keep talking about the need for more housing…property values are already falling. Also, is there no realization that Davis can’t just keep growing? At some point, there just won’t be land available. I don’t get why some people don’t seem to think that its important to have people work in town…jobs = +$ for the city. Housing = costs.
Davis shouldn’t just be a bedroom community…it is essential to keep professional/intellectual based businesses in town.
Well this gets more and more interesting.
Right now commerical financing, especially for construction, is at an absolute standstill. Debate all you want but you will eventually need to go with what you can find. Since CRE is so incredibly overbuilt all over the region but Davis is considered marginally viable for housing, guess what you are going to get?
And don’t say it won’t happen because once the city becomes desparate enough to need any development that produces fat fees for the coffers – guess what you will get again?
Yes really. Try floating a ninty day muni out there and see what the rates are. So if you need to shore up the schools yet again, where is that money going to come from?
Well this gets more and more interesting.
Right now commerical financing, especially for construction, is at an absolute standstill. Debate all you want but you will eventually need to go with what you can find. Since CRE is so incredibly overbuilt all over the region but Davis is considered marginally viable for housing, guess what you are going to get?
And don’t say it won’t happen because once the city becomes desparate enough to need any development that produces fat fees for the coffers – guess what you will get again?
Yes really. Try floating a ninty day muni out there and see what the rates are. So if you need to shore up the schools yet again, where is that money going to come from?
Well this gets more and more interesting.
Right now commerical financing, especially for construction, is at an absolute standstill. Debate all you want but you will eventually need to go with what you can find. Since CRE is so incredibly overbuilt all over the region but Davis is considered marginally viable for housing, guess what you are going to get?
And don’t say it won’t happen because once the city becomes desparate enough to need any development that produces fat fees for the coffers – guess what you will get again?
Yes really. Try floating a ninty day muni out there and see what the rates are. So if you need to shore up the schools yet again, where is that money going to come from?
Well this gets more and more interesting.
Right now commerical financing, especially for construction, is at an absolute standstill. Debate all you want but you will eventually need to go with what you can find. Since CRE is so incredibly overbuilt all over the region but Davis is considered marginally viable for housing, guess what you are going to get?
And don’t say it won’t happen because once the city becomes desparate enough to need any development that produces fat fees for the coffers – guess what you will get again?
Yes really. Try floating a ninty day muni out there and see what the rates are. So if you need to shore up the schools yet again, where is that money going to come from?
Leave the property zoned as it is. Housing is a terrible idea on that location. If a plan proceeds, make them give up 2-1 outboard mitigation land in fee simple to the public, and make them go through a Measure J type of vote.
Eileen: your support for this project is ssssssooooooo contrary to any of your long held planning ideas and positions. Why are you shilling for Lewis Homes? You are saying “the Progressives are on board,” when in fact few, if any, of us are.
Leave the property zoned as it is. Housing is a terrible idea on that location. If a plan proceeds, make them give up 2-1 outboard mitigation land in fee simple to the public, and make them go through a Measure J type of vote.
Eileen: your support for this project is ssssssooooooo contrary to any of your long held planning ideas and positions. Why are you shilling for Lewis Homes? You are saying “the Progressives are on board,” when in fact few, if any, of us are.
Leave the property zoned as it is. Housing is a terrible idea on that location. If a plan proceeds, make them give up 2-1 outboard mitigation land in fee simple to the public, and make them go through a Measure J type of vote.
Eileen: your support for this project is ssssssooooooo contrary to any of your long held planning ideas and positions. Why are you shilling for Lewis Homes? You are saying “the Progressives are on board,” when in fact few, if any, of us are.
Leave the property zoned as it is. Housing is a terrible idea on that location. If a plan proceeds, make them give up 2-1 outboard mitigation land in fee simple to the public, and make them go through a Measure J type of vote.
Eileen: your support for this project is ssssssooooooo contrary to any of your long held planning ideas and positions. Why are you shilling for Lewis Homes? You are saying “the Progressives are on board,” when in fact few, if any, of us are.
I was one of the few attendees of last Monday’s joint City Council-Business and Economic Development Commission meeting who did not express a view one way or another about housing at the Cannery site. But I thought it was laughable that the Council majority-appointed commissioners were falling all over each other calling for housing, with the notion of jobs and the economy almost an afterthought. Aren’t they there to weigh in on just “business and economic development”? By the way, the new commissioner Sydney Vergus was the only one who decided not to ask any questions at all after the lengthy presentation, and her comments were limited to a chirpy “I’m tired of renting, so let’s build housing!” And folks think she has what it takes to be on the City Council? Jeesh! There have got to be other 20-somethings out there who can offer much more than she can.
I was one of the few attendees of last Monday’s joint City Council-Business and Economic Development Commission meeting who did not express a view one way or another about housing at the Cannery site. But I thought it was laughable that the Council majority-appointed commissioners were falling all over each other calling for housing, with the notion of jobs and the economy almost an afterthought. Aren’t they there to weigh in on just “business and economic development”? By the way, the new commissioner Sydney Vergus was the only one who decided not to ask any questions at all after the lengthy presentation, and her comments were limited to a chirpy “I’m tired of renting, so let’s build housing!” And folks think she has what it takes to be on the City Council? Jeesh! There have got to be other 20-somethings out there who can offer much more than she can.
I was one of the few attendees of last Monday’s joint City Council-Business and Economic Development Commission meeting who did not express a view one way or another about housing at the Cannery site. But I thought it was laughable that the Council majority-appointed commissioners were falling all over each other calling for housing, with the notion of jobs and the economy almost an afterthought. Aren’t they there to weigh in on just “business and economic development”? By the way, the new commissioner Sydney Vergus was the only one who decided not to ask any questions at all after the lengthy presentation, and her comments were limited to a chirpy “I’m tired of renting, so let’s build housing!” And folks think she has what it takes to be on the City Council? Jeesh! There have got to be other 20-somethings out there who can offer much more than she can.
I was one of the few attendees of last Monday’s joint City Council-Business and Economic Development Commission meeting who did not express a view one way or another about housing at the Cannery site. But I thought it was laughable that the Council majority-appointed commissioners were falling all over each other calling for housing, with the notion of jobs and the economy almost an afterthought. Aren’t they there to weigh in on just “business and economic development”? By the way, the new commissioner Sydney Vergus was the only one who decided not to ask any questions at all after the lengthy presentation, and her comments were limited to a chirpy “I’m tired of renting, so let’s build housing!” And folks think she has what it takes to be on the City Council? Jeesh! There have got to be other 20-somethings out there who can offer much more than she can.
Not all of the BEDC commissioners supported the housing proposal.
Not all of the BEDC commissioners supported the housing proposal.
Not all of the BEDC commissioners supported the housing proposal.
Not all of the BEDC commissioners supported the housing proposal.
I suspect that Eileen supports housing for this project to lessen the need for Covell Village. Leave this site industrial. It is suited for it. Where do we put housing? How about the northwest quadrant? How about west of town? Or (god strike me down for even mentioning it) how about the Gidaro property? There are other options.
I suspect that Eileen supports housing for this project to lessen the need for Covell Village. Leave this site industrial. It is suited for it. Where do we put housing? How about the northwest quadrant? How about west of town? Or (god strike me down for even mentioning it) how about the Gidaro property? There are other options.
I suspect that Eileen supports housing for this project to lessen the need for Covell Village. Leave this site industrial. It is suited for it. Where do we put housing? How about the northwest quadrant? How about west of town? Or (god strike me down for even mentioning it) how about the Gidaro property? There are other options.
I suspect that Eileen supports housing for this project to lessen the need for Covell Village. Leave this site industrial. It is suited for it. Where do we put housing? How about the northwest quadrant? How about west of town? Or (god strike me down for even mentioning it) how about the Gidaro property? There are other options.
Mike Harrington: “If a plan proceeds, make them give up 2-1 outboard mitigation land in fee simple to the public.”
Mike, what is an outboard mitigation?
Are you suggesting the developer needs to buy 200 acres of land somewhere else and give that land to the city of Davis?
Beyond the fact that this sounds like an extortion scheme and will make housing more expensive in Davis, why should our city be in the business of owning remote properties? Is your idea that they city will then develop the 200 acres it extorted? Or is it that you want the city of Davis to be a landlord on farmland? If it is the latter, it seems like a strange plan — our city is not set up to run such a business and likely would not do it well.
Mike Harrington: “If a plan proceeds, make them give up 2-1 outboard mitigation land in fee simple to the public.”
Mike, what is an outboard mitigation?
Are you suggesting the developer needs to buy 200 acres of land somewhere else and give that land to the city of Davis?
Beyond the fact that this sounds like an extortion scheme and will make housing more expensive in Davis, why should our city be in the business of owning remote properties? Is your idea that they city will then develop the 200 acres it extorted? Or is it that you want the city of Davis to be a landlord on farmland? If it is the latter, it seems like a strange plan — our city is not set up to run such a business and likely would not do it well.
Mike Harrington: “If a plan proceeds, make them give up 2-1 outboard mitigation land in fee simple to the public.”
Mike, what is an outboard mitigation?
Are you suggesting the developer needs to buy 200 acres of land somewhere else and give that land to the city of Davis?
Beyond the fact that this sounds like an extortion scheme and will make housing more expensive in Davis, why should our city be in the business of owning remote properties? Is your idea that they city will then develop the 200 acres it extorted? Or is it that you want the city of Davis to be a landlord on farmland? If it is the latter, it seems like a strange plan — our city is not set up to run such a business and likely would not do it well.
Mike Harrington: “If a plan proceeds, make them give up 2-1 outboard mitigation land in fee simple to the public.”
Mike, what is an outboard mitigation?
Are you suggesting the developer needs to buy 200 acres of land somewhere else and give that land to the city of Davis?
Beyond the fact that this sounds like an extortion scheme and will make housing more expensive in Davis, why should our city be in the business of owning remote properties? Is your idea that they city will then develop the 200 acres it extorted? Or is it that you want the city of Davis to be a landlord on farmland? If it is the latter, it seems like a strange plan — our city is not set up to run such a business and likely would not do it well.
Clarification in response to Anonymous 9:27 who references Tim Lewis.
While Tim Lewis is a northern California home builder, there is no relationship between the privately owned Lewis Operation Corporation and Lewis Planned Communities which was founded by Ralph and Goldie Lewis, and now operated by their children.
Clarification in response to Anonymous 9:27 who references Tim Lewis.
While Tim Lewis is a northern California home builder, there is no relationship between the privately owned Lewis Operation Corporation and Lewis Planned Communities which was founded by Ralph and Goldie Lewis, and now operated by their children.
Clarification in response to Anonymous 9:27 who references Tim Lewis.
While Tim Lewis is a northern California home builder, there is no relationship between the privately owned Lewis Operation Corporation and Lewis Planned Communities which was founded by Ralph and Goldie Lewis, and now operated by their children.
Clarification in response to Anonymous 9:27 who references Tim Lewis.
While Tim Lewis is a northern California home builder, there is no relationship between the privately owned Lewis Operation Corporation and Lewis Planned Communities which was founded by Ralph and Goldie Lewis, and now operated by their children.
“Are you suggesting the developer needs to buy 200 acres of land somewhere else and give that land to the city of Davis?”
Close. I don’t think the city of Davis gains ownership of the land, but the land is preserved as permanent ag land. This is what Parlin had to do with the Wild Horse project and the requirement (or potential requirement depending on how much land one wants to use for development) of any developer who wants to develop on peripheral land. What Mike Harrington is suggesting is the same standard for land within the city as land that is outside of the city.
“Are you suggesting the developer needs to buy 200 acres of land somewhere else and give that land to the city of Davis?”
Close. I don’t think the city of Davis gains ownership of the land, but the land is preserved as permanent ag land. This is what Parlin had to do with the Wild Horse project and the requirement (or potential requirement depending on how much land one wants to use for development) of any developer who wants to develop on peripheral land. What Mike Harrington is suggesting is the same standard for land within the city as land that is outside of the city.
“Are you suggesting the developer needs to buy 200 acres of land somewhere else and give that land to the city of Davis?”
Close. I don’t think the city of Davis gains ownership of the land, but the land is preserved as permanent ag land. This is what Parlin had to do with the Wild Horse project and the requirement (or potential requirement depending on how much land one wants to use for development) of any developer who wants to develop on peripheral land. What Mike Harrington is suggesting is the same standard for land within the city as land that is outside of the city.
“Are you suggesting the developer needs to buy 200 acres of land somewhere else and give that land to the city of Davis?”
Close. I don’t think the city of Davis gains ownership of the land, but the land is preserved as permanent ag land. This is what Parlin had to do with the Wild Horse project and the requirement (or potential requirement depending on how much land one wants to use for development) of any developer who wants to develop on peripheral land. What Mike Harrington is suggesting is the same standard for land within the city as land that is outside of the city.
DG: “I don’t think the city of Davis gains ownership of the land, but the land is preserved as permanent ag land.”
Mike wrote this, contradicting (I think) your response: “land in fee simple.”
That means “real estate ownership,” as far as I know. I am not an attorney, but I used to deal with them when I worked in real estate development (building live-work units in the Bay Area). I recall that “fee simple” term, and it always meant ownership of real estate.
DG: This is what Parlin had to do with the Wild Horse project…”
I think it was actually the Duffels (prior to Parlin) who funded the so-called Wildhorse mitigation fund. However, it was not for “land in fee simple.” It could be that, or, as we just did, an easement purchase out in the middle of nowhere for no tangible benefit to the people of Davis.
DG: “What Mike Harrington is suggesting is the same standard for land within the city as land that is outside of the city.”
That is why I asked the question: I don’t really get why he is suggesting it. The city’s current policy is that any builder who urbanizes farm land on our periphery must purchase an easement on farm land of comparable quality*, covering twice the acreage he develops.
However, in the case of Lewis Homes, their land is not farm land, it’s industrial land; and thus the 2:1 mitigation policy of the city of Davis does not apply.
* I asked, but could not get a straight answer from the city, a related question: does the land “preserved” have to be anywhere near Davis? If so, how close? If not, how far away can it be? Can it be in Yuba or Glenn County? No one I asked seemed to know the answer to this line of questions.
——-
P.S. Something entirely unrelated… Until today, every time I logged onto this site, my “username” has always been displayed. Thus, I just hit “enter” and my comments were published under my name. Today, I had to type out my name and password. I wonder if this changed today for anyone else? Or maybe it’s something with my computer?
DG: “I don’t think the city of Davis gains ownership of the land, but the land is preserved as permanent ag land.”
Mike wrote this, contradicting (I think) your response: “land in fee simple.”
That means “real estate ownership,” as far as I know. I am not an attorney, but I used to deal with them when I worked in real estate development (building live-work units in the Bay Area). I recall that “fee simple” term, and it always meant ownership of real estate.
DG: This is what Parlin had to do with the Wild Horse project…”
I think it was actually the Duffels (prior to Parlin) who funded the so-called Wildhorse mitigation fund. However, it was not for “land in fee simple.” It could be that, or, as we just did, an easement purchase out in the middle of nowhere for no tangible benefit to the people of Davis.
DG: “What Mike Harrington is suggesting is the same standard for land within the city as land that is outside of the city.”
That is why I asked the question: I don’t really get why he is suggesting it. The city’s current policy is that any builder who urbanizes farm land on our periphery must purchase an easement on farm land of comparable quality*, covering twice the acreage he develops.
However, in the case of Lewis Homes, their land is not farm land, it’s industrial land; and thus the 2:1 mitigation policy of the city of Davis does not apply.
* I asked, but could not get a straight answer from the city, a related question: does the land “preserved” have to be anywhere near Davis? If so, how close? If not, how far away can it be? Can it be in Yuba or Glenn County? No one I asked seemed to know the answer to this line of questions.
——-
P.S. Something entirely unrelated… Until today, every time I logged onto this site, my “username” has always been displayed. Thus, I just hit “enter” and my comments were published under my name. Today, I had to type out my name and password. I wonder if this changed today for anyone else? Or maybe it’s something with my computer?
DG: “I don’t think the city of Davis gains ownership of the land, but the land is preserved as permanent ag land.”
Mike wrote this, contradicting (I think) your response: “land in fee simple.”
That means “real estate ownership,” as far as I know. I am not an attorney, but I used to deal with them when I worked in real estate development (building live-work units in the Bay Area). I recall that “fee simple” term, and it always meant ownership of real estate.
DG: This is what Parlin had to do with the Wild Horse project…”
I think it was actually the Duffels (prior to Parlin) who funded the so-called Wildhorse mitigation fund. However, it was not for “land in fee simple.” It could be that, or, as we just did, an easement purchase out in the middle of nowhere for no tangible benefit to the people of Davis.
DG: “What Mike Harrington is suggesting is the same standard for land within the city as land that is outside of the city.”
That is why I asked the question: I don’t really get why he is suggesting it. The city’s current policy is that any builder who urbanizes farm land on our periphery must purchase an easement on farm land of comparable quality*, covering twice the acreage he develops.
However, in the case of Lewis Homes, their land is not farm land, it’s industrial land; and thus the 2:1 mitigation policy of the city of Davis does not apply.
* I asked, but could not get a straight answer from the city, a related question: does the land “preserved” have to be anywhere near Davis? If so, how close? If not, how far away can it be? Can it be in Yuba or Glenn County? No one I asked seemed to know the answer to this line of questions.
——-
P.S. Something entirely unrelated… Until today, every time I logged onto this site, my “username” has always been displayed. Thus, I just hit “enter” and my comments were published under my name. Today, I had to type out my name and password. I wonder if this changed today for anyone else? Or maybe it’s something with my computer?
DG: “I don’t think the city of Davis gains ownership of the land, but the land is preserved as permanent ag land.”
Mike wrote this, contradicting (I think) your response: “land in fee simple.”
That means “real estate ownership,” as far as I know. I am not an attorney, but I used to deal with them when I worked in real estate development (building live-work units in the Bay Area). I recall that “fee simple” term, and it always meant ownership of real estate.
DG: This is what Parlin had to do with the Wild Horse project…”
I think it was actually the Duffels (prior to Parlin) who funded the so-called Wildhorse mitigation fund. However, it was not for “land in fee simple.” It could be that, or, as we just did, an easement purchase out in the middle of nowhere for no tangible benefit to the people of Davis.
DG: “What Mike Harrington is suggesting is the same standard for land within the city as land that is outside of the city.”
That is why I asked the question: I don’t really get why he is suggesting it. The city’s current policy is that any builder who urbanizes farm land on our periphery must purchase an easement on farm land of comparable quality*, covering twice the acreage he develops.
However, in the case of Lewis Homes, their land is not farm land, it’s industrial land; and thus the 2:1 mitigation policy of the city of Davis does not apply.
* I asked, but could not get a straight answer from the city, a related question: does the land “preserved” have to be anywhere near Davis? If so, how close? If not, how far away can it be? Can it be in Yuba or Glenn County? No one I asked seemed to know the answer to this line of questions.
——-
P.S. Something entirely unrelated… Until today, every time I logged onto this site, my “username” has always been displayed. Thus, I just hit “enter” and my comments were published under my name. Today, I had to type out my name and password. I wonder if this changed today for anyone else? Or maybe it’s something with my computer?
First to address the concept of why mixed use for the Hunt-Wesson/Lewis Cannery site. The concept goes back to the Measure X campaign when those of us on the No on steering committee (over 20 members) agreed that providing housing that was affordable to Davis residents made total sense to locate at the abandoned Hunt Wesson site. Sue Greenwald opposed that position then, and now, but the steering committee was in agreement on this point. As a result, it was included in our literature. I have not changed my opinion on this point, and I do not know of any steering committee member who served throughout the No on Measure X campaign who has changed their position on this.
The zoning for this site has included the option for high tech for years, but no commercial entity has shown any interest in it. The fact that residential has, essentially, encroached on the 100-acre site probably has alot to do with it. The tragic fatality of a UCD student at Pole Line and Covell occurred at the nearly intersection just a few years ago due to a large semi-truck may have played a part, as well. Placing a huge 100 -business/high tech park in the middle of existing neighborhoods, and then encouraging alot of huge semi-trucks to travel through the neighborhoods to get to it, makes no sense.
The BEDC committee last Monday made it clear that to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche If Genentech were to sell, then there may be a number of facility closures. The BEDC committee, except for one member, agreed that the mixed use made the most sense, because it provided balance. It would provide some housing for Davis’ workforce plus some scaled business park (rather than an enormous commercial park) for some jobs in the middle of existing neighborhoods. The mixed use provides the best of two worlds, some affordable housing and a small scaled business/office park (which incidentally I have in my neighborhood which works fine).
Providing housing that would be affordable to Davis residents on 100 acres of an abandoned factory site (for 9 years now) on urban zoned land within the city, makes a lot more sense to me, than paving over almost 400 acres of mostly prime ag land at the Covell Village site.
On a final note, Mike, to ask for ag mitigation on development of urban zoned land within the city is a bit unusual to say the least. It would be like asking for ag mitigation on your admirable infill project of your business structure downtown next to your housing units. I am a staunch defender of ag mitigation but ag mitigation is intended for non-urban zoned land. I also stand by the position I took during the No on Measure X campaign and back our steering committee’s decision that housing is appropriate for the Hunt-Wesson site. Most importantly, the housing that may result on the Hunt-Wesson site needs to be affordable. If the amount of land available for the housing were reduced by a new policy of urban-zoned ag mitigation, it would likely increase the cost of the housing units. It seems to be good planning and common sense that a mixed use at the Hunt-Wesson/ Lewis Cannery site of a 2/3 affordable workforce housing and 1/3 office/business park (scaled to neighborhoods) for some jobs, is the most logical land use choice for this site.
First to address the concept of why mixed use for the Hunt-Wesson/Lewis Cannery site. The concept goes back to the Measure X campaign when those of us on the No on steering committee (over 20 members) agreed that providing housing that was affordable to Davis residents made total sense to locate at the abandoned Hunt Wesson site. Sue Greenwald opposed that position then, and now, but the steering committee was in agreement on this point. As a result, it was included in our literature. I have not changed my opinion on this point, and I do not know of any steering committee member who served throughout the No on Measure X campaign who has changed their position on this.
The zoning for this site has included the option for high tech for years, but no commercial entity has shown any interest in it. The fact that residential has, essentially, encroached on the 100-acre site probably has alot to do with it. The tragic fatality of a UCD student at Pole Line and Covell occurred at the nearly intersection just a few years ago due to a large semi-truck may have played a part, as well. Placing a huge 100 -business/high tech park in the middle of existing neighborhoods, and then encouraging alot of huge semi-trucks to travel through the neighborhoods to get to it, makes no sense.
The BEDC committee last Monday made it clear that to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche If Genentech were to sell, then there may be a number of facility closures. The BEDC committee, except for one member, agreed that the mixed use made the most sense, because it provided balance. It would provide some housing for Davis’ workforce plus some scaled business park (rather than an enormous commercial park) for some jobs in the middle of existing neighborhoods. The mixed use provides the best of two worlds, some affordable housing and a small scaled business/office park (which incidentally I have in my neighborhood which works fine).
Providing housing that would be affordable to Davis residents on 100 acres of an abandoned factory site (for 9 years now) on urban zoned land within the city, makes a lot more sense to me, than paving over almost 400 acres of mostly prime ag land at the Covell Village site.
On a final note, Mike, to ask for ag mitigation on development of urban zoned land within the city is a bit unusual to say the least. It would be like asking for ag mitigation on your admirable infill project of your business structure downtown next to your housing units. I am a staunch defender of ag mitigation but ag mitigation is intended for non-urban zoned land. I also stand by the position I took during the No on Measure X campaign and back our steering committee’s decision that housing is appropriate for the Hunt-Wesson site. Most importantly, the housing that may result on the Hunt-Wesson site needs to be affordable. If the amount of land available for the housing were reduced by a new policy of urban-zoned ag mitigation, it would likely increase the cost of the housing units. It seems to be good planning and common sense that a mixed use at the Hunt-Wesson/ Lewis Cannery site of a 2/3 affordable workforce housing and 1/3 office/business park (scaled to neighborhoods) for some jobs, is the most logical land use choice for this site.
First to address the concept of why mixed use for the Hunt-Wesson/Lewis Cannery site. The concept goes back to the Measure X campaign when those of us on the No on steering committee (over 20 members) agreed that providing housing that was affordable to Davis residents made total sense to locate at the abandoned Hunt Wesson site. Sue Greenwald opposed that position then, and now, but the steering committee was in agreement on this point. As a result, it was included in our literature. I have not changed my opinion on this point, and I do not know of any steering committee member who served throughout the No on Measure X campaign who has changed their position on this.
The zoning for this site has included the option for high tech for years, but no commercial entity has shown any interest in it. The fact that residential has, essentially, encroached on the 100-acre site probably has alot to do with it. The tragic fatality of a UCD student at Pole Line and Covell occurred at the nearly intersection just a few years ago due to a large semi-truck may have played a part, as well. Placing a huge 100 -business/high tech park in the middle of existing neighborhoods, and then encouraging alot of huge semi-trucks to travel through the neighborhoods to get to it, makes no sense.
The BEDC committee last Monday made it clear that to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche If Genentech were to sell, then there may be a number of facility closures. The BEDC committee, except for one member, agreed that the mixed use made the most sense, because it provided balance. It would provide some housing for Davis’ workforce plus some scaled business park (rather than an enormous commercial park) for some jobs in the middle of existing neighborhoods. The mixed use provides the best of two worlds, some affordable housing and a small scaled business/office park (which incidentally I have in my neighborhood which works fine).
Providing housing that would be affordable to Davis residents on 100 acres of an abandoned factory site (for 9 years now) on urban zoned land within the city, makes a lot more sense to me, than paving over almost 400 acres of mostly prime ag land at the Covell Village site.
On a final note, Mike, to ask for ag mitigation on development of urban zoned land within the city is a bit unusual to say the least. It would be like asking for ag mitigation on your admirable infill project of your business structure downtown next to your housing units. I am a staunch defender of ag mitigation but ag mitigation is intended for non-urban zoned land. I also stand by the position I took during the No on Measure X campaign and back our steering committee’s decision that housing is appropriate for the Hunt-Wesson site. Most importantly, the housing that may result on the Hunt-Wesson site needs to be affordable. If the amount of land available for the housing were reduced by a new policy of urban-zoned ag mitigation, it would likely increase the cost of the housing units. It seems to be good planning and common sense that a mixed use at the Hunt-Wesson/ Lewis Cannery site of a 2/3 affordable workforce housing and 1/3 office/business park (scaled to neighborhoods) for some jobs, is the most logical land use choice for this site.
First to address the concept of why mixed use for the Hunt-Wesson/Lewis Cannery site. The concept goes back to the Measure X campaign when those of us on the No on steering committee (over 20 members) agreed that providing housing that was affordable to Davis residents made total sense to locate at the abandoned Hunt Wesson site. Sue Greenwald opposed that position then, and now, but the steering committee was in agreement on this point. As a result, it was included in our literature. I have not changed my opinion on this point, and I do not know of any steering committee member who served throughout the No on Measure X campaign who has changed their position on this.
The zoning for this site has included the option for high tech for years, but no commercial entity has shown any interest in it. The fact that residential has, essentially, encroached on the 100-acre site probably has alot to do with it. The tragic fatality of a UCD student at Pole Line and Covell occurred at the nearly intersection just a few years ago due to a large semi-truck may have played a part, as well. Placing a huge 100 -business/high tech park in the middle of existing neighborhoods, and then encouraging alot of huge semi-trucks to travel through the neighborhoods to get to it, makes no sense.
The BEDC committee last Monday made it clear that to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche If Genentech were to sell, then there may be a number of facility closures. The BEDC committee, except for one member, agreed that the mixed use made the most sense, because it provided balance. It would provide some housing for Davis’ workforce plus some scaled business park (rather than an enormous commercial park) for some jobs in the middle of existing neighborhoods. The mixed use provides the best of two worlds, some affordable housing and a small scaled business/office park (which incidentally I have in my neighborhood which works fine).
Providing housing that would be affordable to Davis residents on 100 acres of an abandoned factory site (for 9 years now) on urban zoned land within the city, makes a lot more sense to me, than paving over almost 400 acres of mostly prime ag land at the Covell Village site.
On a final note, Mike, to ask for ag mitigation on development of urban zoned land within the city is a bit unusual to say the least. It would be like asking for ag mitigation on your admirable infill project of your business structure downtown next to your housing units. I am a staunch defender of ag mitigation but ag mitigation is intended for non-urban zoned land. I also stand by the position I took during the No on Measure X campaign and back our steering committee’s decision that housing is appropriate for the Hunt-Wesson site. Most importantly, the housing that may result on the Hunt-Wesson site needs to be affordable. If the amount of land available for the housing were reduced by a new policy of urban-zoned ag mitigation, it would likely increase the cost of the housing units. It seems to be good planning and common sense that a mixed use at the Hunt-Wesson/ Lewis Cannery site of a 2/3 affordable workforce housing and 1/3 office/business park (scaled to neighborhoods) for some jobs, is the most logical land use choice for this site.
I support a carefully zoned high-tech business park on the Hunt-Wesson site. The surest way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is to put housing closer to jobs, and jobs closer to housing.
The City has a great opportunity to put jobs at Hunt-Wesson site, which is surrounded by housing, and to put housing at the PG&E site, which is surrounded by jobs. In the Mace Ranch area, we have seen that many people DO choose to live near their jobs when jobs are built near existing housing, and they do walk and bike to work. That is what smart planning is all about.
We have actually had a lot of activity in high-tech and high tech-related businesses lately, even in the fact of the catastrophic housing and commercial property bust. We are currently just about out of sites on the market for medium-sized businesses and for larger businesses (the huge Genentec research facility being built in Dixon required 13 acres, but will only employ 160 people, and hence will generate very little traffic).
Housing is currently way overbuilt in the Sacramento region. Housing developers who get entitlements are likely to just sit on them for the foreseeable future. I don't see any good arguments for turning our best remaining high-tech zoned into housing.
I support a carefully zoned high-tech business park on the Hunt-Wesson site. The surest way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is to put housing closer to jobs, and jobs closer to housing.
The City has a great opportunity to put jobs at Hunt-Wesson site, which is surrounded by housing, and to put housing at the PG&E site, which is surrounded by jobs. In the Mace Ranch area, we have seen that many people DO choose to live near their jobs when jobs are built near existing housing, and they do walk and bike to work. That is what smart planning is all about.
We have actually had a lot of activity in high-tech and high tech-related businesses lately, even in the fact of the catastrophic housing and commercial property bust. We are currently just about out of sites on the market for medium-sized businesses and for larger businesses (the huge Genentec research facility being built in Dixon required 13 acres, but will only employ 160 people, and hence will generate very little traffic).
Housing is currently way overbuilt in the Sacramento region. Housing developers who get entitlements are likely to just sit on them for the foreseeable future. I don't see any good arguments for turning our best remaining high-tech zoned into housing.
I support a carefully zoned high-tech business park on the Hunt-Wesson site. The surest way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is to put housing closer to jobs, and jobs closer to housing.
The City has a great opportunity to put jobs at Hunt-Wesson site, which is surrounded by housing, and to put housing at the PG&E site, which is surrounded by jobs. In the Mace Ranch area, we have seen that many people DO choose to live near their jobs when jobs are built near existing housing, and they do walk and bike to work. That is what smart planning is all about.
We have actually had a lot of activity in high-tech and high tech-related businesses lately, even in the fact of the catastrophic housing and commercial property bust. We are currently just about out of sites on the market for medium-sized businesses and for larger businesses (the huge Genentec research facility being built in Dixon required 13 acres, but will only employ 160 people, and hence will generate very little traffic).
Housing is currently way overbuilt in the Sacramento region. Housing developers who get entitlements are likely to just sit on them for the foreseeable future. I don't see any good arguments for turning our best remaining high-tech zoned into housing.
I support a carefully zoned high-tech business park on the Hunt-Wesson site. The surest way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is to put housing closer to jobs, and jobs closer to housing.
The City has a great opportunity to put jobs at Hunt-Wesson site, which is surrounded by housing, and to put housing at the PG&E site, which is surrounded by jobs. In the Mace Ranch area, we have seen that many people DO choose to live near their jobs when jobs are built near existing housing, and they do walk and bike to work. That is what smart planning is all about.
We have actually had a lot of activity in high-tech and high tech-related businesses lately, even in the fact of the catastrophic housing and commercial property bust. We are currently just about out of sites on the market for medium-sized businesses and for larger businesses (the huge Genentec research facility being built in Dixon required 13 acres, but will only employ 160 people, and hence will generate very little traffic).
Housing is currently way overbuilt in the Sacramento region. Housing developers who get entitlements are likely to just sit on them for the foreseeable future. I don't see any good arguments for turning our best remaining high-tech zoned into housing.
“I am a staunch defender of ag mitigation …”
Why?
“I am a staunch defender of ag mitigation …”
Why?
“I am a staunch defender of ag mitigation …”
Why?
“I am a staunch defender of ag mitigation …”
Why?
Having been in Davis much longer than anybody responding I need to add another opinion on use of this space.
The Demilitarized zone in Korea is about 2 to 3 miles wide across the whole peninsula. That area has seen little invasion by people. It has become a vegetatively lush and rich area in which many animals that were near extinction now flourish.
Back to the subject. The concrete should be removed from the site and it should be planted with trees and indigenous plants. No housing or inhabitants should be allowed. The site should be used only for burial of crooked politicians, bad lawyers,(there’s a lot of them), and crooked, or union perverts, and organizers.
That site would be very useful in that capacity. Please vote for Eileen Samitz for president.
Having been in Davis much longer than anybody responding I need to add another opinion on use of this space.
The Demilitarized zone in Korea is about 2 to 3 miles wide across the whole peninsula. That area has seen little invasion by people. It has become a vegetatively lush and rich area in which many animals that were near extinction now flourish.
Back to the subject. The concrete should be removed from the site and it should be planted with trees and indigenous plants. No housing or inhabitants should be allowed. The site should be used only for burial of crooked politicians, bad lawyers,(there’s a lot of them), and crooked, or union perverts, and organizers.
That site would be very useful in that capacity. Please vote for Eileen Samitz for president.
Having been in Davis much longer than anybody responding I need to add another opinion on use of this space.
The Demilitarized zone in Korea is about 2 to 3 miles wide across the whole peninsula. That area has seen little invasion by people. It has become a vegetatively lush and rich area in which many animals that were near extinction now flourish.
Back to the subject. The concrete should be removed from the site and it should be planted with trees and indigenous plants. No housing or inhabitants should be allowed. The site should be used only for burial of crooked politicians, bad lawyers,(there’s a lot of them), and crooked, or union perverts, and organizers.
That site would be very useful in that capacity. Please vote for Eileen Samitz for president.
Having been in Davis much longer than anybody responding I need to add another opinion on use of this space.
The Demilitarized zone in Korea is about 2 to 3 miles wide across the whole peninsula. That area has seen little invasion by people. It has become a vegetatively lush and rich area in which many animals that were near extinction now flourish.
Back to the subject. The concrete should be removed from the site and it should be planted with trees and indigenous plants. No housing or inhabitants should be allowed. The site should be used only for burial of crooked politicians, bad lawyers,(there’s a lot of them), and crooked, or union perverts, and organizers.
That site would be very useful in that capacity. Please vote for Eileen Samitz for president.
Eileen Samitz is leading us to believe that everyone on the steering committee for No on X supports housing only or mostly at the Hunt Wesson site. I was a very active committee member, and I do not support a large development of housing-only at this site, and I am willing to bet this is true of many of the rest of us. When we argued that the site was better suited for a development than the CV site, we were saying just that. It is more suitable because it does not take ag land out of production, have serious impacts on threatened and endangered species, is within the city, so would generate more property tax than development of county land, and is an obvious redevelopment site. This position does not mean that the No on X steering committee then or now all support(ed) a large housing development at the Hunt Wesson site.
I also do not support keeping this site for high tech. It has been zoned to permit that use for over 8 years, with nary a nibble. It is time for Sue to stop pandering to her University buddies and to allow this site to be put to some use. I personally support mixed-use at the site with a roughly 50-50 mix with some housing and some commercial/industrial/high tech. This would provide the work-force housing we need and also jobs that we need and some income for the city. If I had to choose from the three scenarios reviewed here, I would choose the one with mixed uses, but with a larger business/industrial/high tech park and fewer houses.
We have to remember that something will go into the CV site eventually–hopefully we do not fall for the current senior housing carrot being dangled by Whitcomb–and that housing along with the housing on the Hunt Wesson site together will create some of the same impacts that the CV development was going to bring, especially with traffic on Covell Blvd.
So, less housing and more business/commercial/etc.
Eileen Samitz is leading us to believe that everyone on the steering committee for No on X supports housing only or mostly at the Hunt Wesson site. I was a very active committee member, and I do not support a large development of housing-only at this site, and I am willing to bet this is true of many of the rest of us. When we argued that the site was better suited for a development than the CV site, we were saying just that. It is more suitable because it does not take ag land out of production, have serious impacts on threatened and endangered species, is within the city, so would generate more property tax than development of county land, and is an obvious redevelopment site. This position does not mean that the No on X steering committee then or now all support(ed) a large housing development at the Hunt Wesson site.
I also do not support keeping this site for high tech. It has been zoned to permit that use for over 8 years, with nary a nibble. It is time for Sue to stop pandering to her University buddies and to allow this site to be put to some use. I personally support mixed-use at the site with a roughly 50-50 mix with some housing and some commercial/industrial/high tech. This would provide the work-force housing we need and also jobs that we need and some income for the city. If I had to choose from the three scenarios reviewed here, I would choose the one with mixed uses, but with a larger business/industrial/high tech park and fewer houses.
We have to remember that something will go into the CV site eventually–hopefully we do not fall for the current senior housing carrot being dangled by Whitcomb–and that housing along with the housing on the Hunt Wesson site together will create some of the same impacts that the CV development was going to bring, especially with traffic on Covell Blvd.
So, less housing and more business/commercial/etc.
Eileen Samitz is leading us to believe that everyone on the steering committee for No on X supports housing only or mostly at the Hunt Wesson site. I was a very active committee member, and I do not support a large development of housing-only at this site, and I am willing to bet this is true of many of the rest of us. When we argued that the site was better suited for a development than the CV site, we were saying just that. It is more suitable because it does not take ag land out of production, have serious impacts on threatened and endangered species, is within the city, so would generate more property tax than development of county land, and is an obvious redevelopment site. This position does not mean that the No on X steering committee then or now all support(ed) a large housing development at the Hunt Wesson site.
I also do not support keeping this site for high tech. It has been zoned to permit that use for over 8 years, with nary a nibble. It is time for Sue to stop pandering to her University buddies and to allow this site to be put to some use. I personally support mixed-use at the site with a roughly 50-50 mix with some housing and some commercial/industrial/high tech. This would provide the work-force housing we need and also jobs that we need and some income for the city. If I had to choose from the three scenarios reviewed here, I would choose the one with mixed uses, but with a larger business/industrial/high tech park and fewer houses.
We have to remember that something will go into the CV site eventually–hopefully we do not fall for the current senior housing carrot being dangled by Whitcomb–and that housing along with the housing on the Hunt Wesson site together will create some of the same impacts that the CV development was going to bring, especially with traffic on Covell Blvd.
So, less housing and more business/commercial/etc.
Eileen Samitz is leading us to believe that everyone on the steering committee for No on X supports housing only or mostly at the Hunt Wesson site. I was a very active committee member, and I do not support a large development of housing-only at this site, and I am willing to bet this is true of many of the rest of us. When we argued that the site was better suited for a development than the CV site, we were saying just that. It is more suitable because it does not take ag land out of production, have serious impacts on threatened and endangered species, is within the city, so would generate more property tax than development of county land, and is an obvious redevelopment site. This position does not mean that the No on X steering committee then or now all support(ed) a large housing development at the Hunt Wesson site.
I also do not support keeping this site for high tech. It has been zoned to permit that use for over 8 years, with nary a nibble. It is time for Sue to stop pandering to her University buddies and to allow this site to be put to some use. I personally support mixed-use at the site with a roughly 50-50 mix with some housing and some commercial/industrial/high tech. This would provide the work-force housing we need and also jobs that we need and some income for the city. If I had to choose from the three scenarios reviewed here, I would choose the one with mixed uses, but with a larger business/industrial/high tech park and fewer houses.
We have to remember that something will go into the CV site eventually–hopefully we do not fall for the current senior housing carrot being dangled by Whitcomb–and that housing along with the housing on the Hunt Wesson site together will create some of the same impacts that the CV development was going to bring, especially with traffic on Covell Blvd.
So, less housing and more business/commercial/etc.
I have followed Eileen Samitz positions for years now and I trust that she is looking out for the citizens of Davis. I don’t think there are many around who are as knowledgeable about the General Plan, developments, and citizen needs than Eileen Samitz. I appreciate that she doesn’t have extreme views of pro-growth or anti-growth but looks at each individual situation and makes a sound decision on either supporting the idea or modifying it based on sound reasoning. As far as Hunt-Wesson, I surely wouldn’t want to live there if housing is in the minority surrounded by business or high-tech. If Davis were to attract people to live there I can’t imagine it would be a very attractive place to live. I doubt UCD or the Davis Mayor would be courting people out there to showcase this great development. Eileen’s position is very sound and I think if the no-growth or slow-growth don’t support her idea, the alternative could be unbridled growth. I am not sure how long Eileen will be willing to continue her thankless work on behalf of so many of us. So, I can’t help resent any insinuation that Eileen is somehow selling out to anyone or changing position.
I have followed Eileen Samitz positions for years now and I trust that she is looking out for the citizens of Davis. I don’t think there are many around who are as knowledgeable about the General Plan, developments, and citizen needs than Eileen Samitz. I appreciate that she doesn’t have extreme views of pro-growth or anti-growth but looks at each individual situation and makes a sound decision on either supporting the idea or modifying it based on sound reasoning. As far as Hunt-Wesson, I surely wouldn’t want to live there if housing is in the minority surrounded by business or high-tech. If Davis were to attract people to live there I can’t imagine it would be a very attractive place to live. I doubt UCD or the Davis Mayor would be courting people out there to showcase this great development. Eileen’s position is very sound and I think if the no-growth or slow-growth don’t support her idea, the alternative could be unbridled growth. I am not sure how long Eileen will be willing to continue her thankless work on behalf of so many of us. So, I can’t help resent any insinuation that Eileen is somehow selling out to anyone or changing position.
I have followed Eileen Samitz positions for years now and I trust that she is looking out for the citizens of Davis. I don’t think there are many around who are as knowledgeable about the General Plan, developments, and citizen needs than Eileen Samitz. I appreciate that she doesn’t have extreme views of pro-growth or anti-growth but looks at each individual situation and makes a sound decision on either supporting the idea or modifying it based on sound reasoning. As far as Hunt-Wesson, I surely wouldn’t want to live there if housing is in the minority surrounded by business or high-tech. If Davis were to attract people to live there I can’t imagine it would be a very attractive place to live. I doubt UCD or the Davis Mayor would be courting people out there to showcase this great development. Eileen’s position is very sound and I think if the no-growth or slow-growth don’t support her idea, the alternative could be unbridled growth. I am not sure how long Eileen will be willing to continue her thankless work on behalf of so many of us. So, I can’t help resent any insinuation that Eileen is somehow selling out to anyone or changing position.
I have followed Eileen Samitz positions for years now and I trust that she is looking out for the citizens of Davis. I don’t think there are many around who are as knowledgeable about the General Plan, developments, and citizen needs than Eileen Samitz. I appreciate that she doesn’t have extreme views of pro-growth or anti-growth but looks at each individual situation and makes a sound decision on either supporting the idea or modifying it based on sound reasoning. As far as Hunt-Wesson, I surely wouldn’t want to live there if housing is in the minority surrounded by business or high-tech. If Davis were to attract people to live there I can’t imagine it would be a very attractive place to live. I doubt UCD or the Davis Mayor would be courting people out there to showcase this great development. Eileen’s position is very sound and I think if the no-growth or slow-growth don’t support her idea, the alternative could be unbridled growth. I am not sure how long Eileen will be willing to continue her thankless work on behalf of so many of us. So, I can’t help resent any insinuation that Eileen is somehow selling out to anyone or changing position.
We are only talking about 60 acres. 60 acres is a bare minimum for a high-tech park.
This part of town is currently a bedroom suburb with only housing. If we want mixed-use planning, this relatively modest, 60 acre business park site should stay all business park. When people talk about “mixed-use business parks”, they are usually talking about sites that are hundreds of acres in size.
We are only talking about 60 acres. 60 acres is a bare minimum for a high-tech park.
This part of town is currently a bedroom suburb with only housing. If we want mixed-use planning, this relatively modest, 60 acre business park site should stay all business park. When people talk about “mixed-use business parks”, they are usually talking about sites that are hundreds of acres in size.
We are only talking about 60 acres. 60 acres is a bare minimum for a high-tech park.
This part of town is currently a bedroom suburb with only housing. If we want mixed-use planning, this relatively modest, 60 acre business park site should stay all business park. When people talk about “mixed-use business parks”, they are usually talking about sites that are hundreds of acres in size.
We are only talking about 60 acres. 60 acres is a bare minimum for a high-tech park.
This part of town is currently a bedroom suburb with only housing. If we want mixed-use planning, this relatively modest, 60 acre business park site should stay all business park. When people talk about “mixed-use business parks”, they are usually talking about sites that are hundreds of acres in size.
“I was a very active committee member, and I do not support a large development of housing-only at this site, and I am willing to bet this is true of many of the rest of us.”
If you are going to claim to be on the committee, please post under your name. Otherwise, it is disingenuous at best to make such claims.
Second, I was under the impression that Eileen supported a mixed-use proposal along the lines proposed by the current property owners.
“I was a very active committee member, and I do not support a large development of housing-only at this site, and I am willing to bet this is true of many of the rest of us.”
If you are going to claim to be on the committee, please post under your name. Otherwise, it is disingenuous at best to make such claims.
Second, I was under the impression that Eileen supported a mixed-use proposal along the lines proposed by the current property owners.
“I was a very active committee member, and I do not support a large development of housing-only at this site, and I am willing to bet this is true of many of the rest of us.”
If you are going to claim to be on the committee, please post under your name. Otherwise, it is disingenuous at best to make such claims.
Second, I was under the impression that Eileen supported a mixed-use proposal along the lines proposed by the current property owners.
“I was a very active committee member, and I do not support a large development of housing-only at this site, and I am willing to bet this is true of many of the rest of us.”
If you are going to claim to be on the committee, please post under your name. Otherwise, it is disingenuous at best to make such claims.
Second, I was under the impression that Eileen supported a mixed-use proposal along the lines proposed by the current property owners.
The important question to ask is whether Davis wants to support high-tech business growth, which is directly related to work conducted on campus, and whether there is enough land to accommodate that long term without future annexation. THAT is the question, not whether there should be housing or not on the Lewis property. If we want to support and retain this kind of business growth within the city and not have to share revenue with the county, especially given the City’s limited revenue stream (and which is adversely affected by the services required by housing), then the answer is pretty clear.
The HESC illustrated MANY locations where additional housing can be accommodated within the city limits. That same exercise for high-tech uses would not be as optimistic.
The correct solution is one that allows just enough residential to make the project profitable for whoever ultimately owns and develops the property and one that maximizes the opportunity for the kind of business growth that best complements Davis and maximizes the revenue resulting from that high-tech business growth.
The important question to ask is whether Davis wants to support high-tech business growth, which is directly related to work conducted on campus, and whether there is enough land to accommodate that long term without future annexation. THAT is the question, not whether there should be housing or not on the Lewis property. If we want to support and retain this kind of business growth within the city and not have to share revenue with the county, especially given the City’s limited revenue stream (and which is adversely affected by the services required by housing), then the answer is pretty clear.
The HESC illustrated MANY locations where additional housing can be accommodated within the city limits. That same exercise for high-tech uses would not be as optimistic.
The correct solution is one that allows just enough residential to make the project profitable for whoever ultimately owns and develops the property and one that maximizes the opportunity for the kind of business growth that best complements Davis and maximizes the revenue resulting from that high-tech business growth.
The important question to ask is whether Davis wants to support high-tech business growth, which is directly related to work conducted on campus, and whether there is enough land to accommodate that long term without future annexation. THAT is the question, not whether there should be housing or not on the Lewis property. If we want to support and retain this kind of business growth within the city and not have to share revenue with the county, especially given the City’s limited revenue stream (and which is adversely affected by the services required by housing), then the answer is pretty clear.
The HESC illustrated MANY locations where additional housing can be accommodated within the city limits. That same exercise for high-tech uses would not be as optimistic.
The correct solution is one that allows just enough residential to make the project profitable for whoever ultimately owns and develops the property and one that maximizes the opportunity for the kind of business growth that best complements Davis and maximizes the revenue resulting from that high-tech business growth.
The important question to ask is whether Davis wants to support high-tech business growth, which is directly related to work conducted on campus, and whether there is enough land to accommodate that long term without future annexation. THAT is the question, not whether there should be housing or not on the Lewis property. If we want to support and retain this kind of business growth within the city and not have to share revenue with the county, especially given the City’s limited revenue stream (and which is adversely affected by the services required by housing), then the answer is pretty clear.
The HESC illustrated MANY locations where additional housing can be accommodated within the city limits. That same exercise for high-tech uses would not be as optimistic.
The correct solution is one that allows just enough residential to make the project profitable for whoever ultimately owns and develops the property and one that maximizes the opportunity for the kind of business growth that best complements Davis and maximizes the revenue resulting from that high-tech business growth.
A business park would make sense if Covell Village was built as adjacent housing for the workers but as a stand alone project it would be industrial age thinking in a post-industrial age. Davis needs workforce housing not McMansions or business parks.
A business park would make sense if Covell Village was built as adjacent housing for the workers but as a stand alone project it would be industrial age thinking in a post-industrial age. Davis needs workforce housing not McMansions or business parks.
A business park would make sense if Covell Village was built as adjacent housing for the workers but as a stand alone project it would be industrial age thinking in a post-industrial age. Davis needs workforce housing not McMansions or business parks.
A business park would make sense if Covell Village was built as adjacent housing for the workers but as a stand alone project it would be industrial age thinking in a post-industrial age. Davis needs workforce housing not McMansions or business parks.
DPD:
I do not believe it is any more disingenuous for me to post as “anonymous” than it is for the other 20 or so who have posted anonymously here. I was a steering committee member. You can believe that or not. My point is, I don’t think any of us or many of us were actually actively advocating for a housing development at the Hunt Wesson site at the time. It was an example of a viable site with fewer impacts.
I do not oppose housing there at all, and do think it is far better to put housing there than to develop the CV site, especially with what was proposed then and is being proposed now for the CV site. But, I feel that 610 houses is too many, given that something will go into CV eventually–probably at least that many homes–and you will be faced with essentially the same impacts that the CV development we fought would have brought, especially with traffic.
Also, housing, especially the work-force housing that we need, in general does not bring adequate revenue to the city to off-set costs of services to the development, so is a loss for the city. I would like to see a well-planned mixed-use development there that will both provide the type of housing that we need and a positive revenue flow to the city.
DPD:
I do not believe it is any more disingenuous for me to post as “anonymous” than it is for the other 20 or so who have posted anonymously here. I was a steering committee member. You can believe that or not. My point is, I don’t think any of us or many of us were actually actively advocating for a housing development at the Hunt Wesson site at the time. It was an example of a viable site with fewer impacts.
I do not oppose housing there at all, and do think it is far better to put housing there than to develop the CV site, especially with what was proposed then and is being proposed now for the CV site. But, I feel that 610 houses is too many, given that something will go into CV eventually–probably at least that many homes–and you will be faced with essentially the same impacts that the CV development we fought would have brought, especially with traffic.
Also, housing, especially the work-force housing that we need, in general does not bring adequate revenue to the city to off-set costs of services to the development, so is a loss for the city. I would like to see a well-planned mixed-use development there that will both provide the type of housing that we need and a positive revenue flow to the city.
DPD:
I do not believe it is any more disingenuous for me to post as “anonymous” than it is for the other 20 or so who have posted anonymously here. I was a steering committee member. You can believe that or not. My point is, I don’t think any of us or many of us were actually actively advocating for a housing development at the Hunt Wesson site at the time. It was an example of a viable site with fewer impacts.
I do not oppose housing there at all, and do think it is far better to put housing there than to develop the CV site, especially with what was proposed then and is being proposed now for the CV site. But, I feel that 610 houses is too many, given that something will go into CV eventually–probably at least that many homes–and you will be faced with essentially the same impacts that the CV development we fought would have brought, especially with traffic.
Also, housing, especially the work-force housing that we need, in general does not bring adequate revenue to the city to off-set costs of services to the development, so is a loss for the city. I would like to see a well-planned mixed-use development there that will both provide the type of housing that we need and a positive revenue flow to the city.
DPD:
I do not believe it is any more disingenuous for me to post as “anonymous” than it is for the other 20 or so who have posted anonymously here. I was a steering committee member. You can believe that or not. My point is, I don’t think any of us or many of us were actually actively advocating for a housing development at the Hunt Wesson site at the time. It was an example of a viable site with fewer impacts.
I do not oppose housing there at all, and do think it is far better to put housing there than to develop the CV site, especially with what was proposed then and is being proposed now for the CV site. But, I feel that 610 houses is too many, given that something will go into CV eventually–probably at least that many homes–and you will be faced with essentially the same impacts that the CV development we fought would have brought, especially with traffic.
Also, housing, especially the work-force housing that we need, in general does not bring adequate revenue to the city to off-set costs of services to the development, so is a loss for the city. I would like to see a well-planned mixed-use development there that will both provide the type of housing that we need and a positive revenue flow to the city.
Most of the other anonymous posters are not claiming to have served on a committee.
Most of the other anonymous posters are not claiming to have served on a committee.
Most of the other anonymous posters are not claiming to have served on a committee.
Most of the other anonymous posters are not claiming to have served on a committee.
“given that something will go into CV eventually–“
I don’t get why this parcel has to be developed? It’s on a major already traffic-stressed intersection. It’s out on the fringes of town, beyond city limits, actually, far too far to walk to downtown or campus.
Whoever believes this parcel needs to be developed with “something” (how open-handed can you get when it comes to helping/attracting developers?) is buying into a paradigm that’s passe, what with the current developments on Wall Street anyway. Won’t be much money trickling down from Wall Street to finance the thing, right?*
Whatever is driving the massive building program is a force that’s not much interested in the quality of life of Davis inhabitants. But, rather, lining its pockets.
Why else are the buildings built here in the past ten years or all so shoddy? Prefab slapped together McMansions of plywood cards. Because quality doesn’t fit into bottom line thinking or perception…
No, quality of life is no longer “Right and Relevant” for inhabitants of Davis–not the ones developers want to attract here, but the ones already living here. Pull up the gate, fill the moat, let the masses go live in Vacaville, Fairfield or the foothills…hah, and that pot-stirring’s the last word on that, at least on this gone-over- and-done-with comment thread.
*Paul Petrovich, the infamous developer of Borders and many other prefab structures around the Central Valley recently had to re-negotiate a loan for a new development he thought was a done deal because the bank got scared…watch for more of that!
“given that something will go into CV eventually–“
I don’t get why this parcel has to be developed? It’s on a major already traffic-stressed intersection. It’s out on the fringes of town, beyond city limits, actually, far too far to walk to downtown or campus.
Whoever believes this parcel needs to be developed with “something” (how open-handed can you get when it comes to helping/attracting developers?) is buying into a paradigm that’s passe, what with the current developments on Wall Street anyway. Won’t be much money trickling down from Wall Street to finance the thing, right?*
Whatever is driving the massive building program is a force that’s not much interested in the quality of life of Davis inhabitants. But, rather, lining its pockets.
Why else are the buildings built here in the past ten years or all so shoddy? Prefab slapped together McMansions of plywood cards. Because quality doesn’t fit into bottom line thinking or perception…
No, quality of life is no longer “Right and Relevant” for inhabitants of Davis–not the ones developers want to attract here, but the ones already living here. Pull up the gate, fill the moat, let the masses go live in Vacaville, Fairfield or the foothills…hah, and that pot-stirring’s the last word on that, at least on this gone-over- and-done-with comment thread.
*Paul Petrovich, the infamous developer of Borders and many other prefab structures around the Central Valley recently had to re-negotiate a loan for a new development he thought was a done deal because the bank got scared…watch for more of that!
“given that something will go into CV eventually–“
I don’t get why this parcel has to be developed? It’s on a major already traffic-stressed intersection. It’s out on the fringes of town, beyond city limits, actually, far too far to walk to downtown or campus.
Whoever believes this parcel needs to be developed with “something” (how open-handed can you get when it comes to helping/attracting developers?) is buying into a paradigm that’s passe, what with the current developments on Wall Street anyway. Won’t be much money trickling down from Wall Street to finance the thing, right?*
Whatever is driving the massive building program is a force that’s not much interested in the quality of life of Davis inhabitants. But, rather, lining its pockets.
Why else are the buildings built here in the past ten years or all so shoddy? Prefab slapped together McMansions of plywood cards. Because quality doesn’t fit into bottom line thinking or perception…
No, quality of life is no longer “Right and Relevant” for inhabitants of Davis–not the ones developers want to attract here, but the ones already living here. Pull up the gate, fill the moat, let the masses go live in Vacaville, Fairfield or the foothills…hah, and that pot-stirring’s the last word on that, at least on this gone-over- and-done-with comment thread.
*Paul Petrovich, the infamous developer of Borders and many other prefab structures around the Central Valley recently had to re-negotiate a loan for a new development he thought was a done deal because the bank got scared…watch for more of that!
“given that something will go into CV eventually–“
I don’t get why this parcel has to be developed? It’s on a major already traffic-stressed intersection. It’s out on the fringes of town, beyond city limits, actually, far too far to walk to downtown or campus.
Whoever believes this parcel needs to be developed with “something” (how open-handed can you get when it comes to helping/attracting developers?) is buying into a paradigm that’s passe, what with the current developments on Wall Street anyway. Won’t be much money trickling down from Wall Street to finance the thing, right?*
Whatever is driving the massive building program is a force that’s not much interested in the quality of life of Davis inhabitants. But, rather, lining its pockets.
Why else are the buildings built here in the past ten years or all so shoddy? Prefab slapped together McMansions of plywood cards. Because quality doesn’t fit into bottom line thinking or perception…
No, quality of life is no longer “Right and Relevant” for inhabitants of Davis–not the ones developers want to attract here, but the ones already living here. Pull up the gate, fill the moat, let the masses go live in Vacaville, Fairfield or the foothills…hah, and that pot-stirring’s the last word on that, at least on this gone-over- and-done-with comment thread.
*Paul Petrovich, the infamous developer of Borders and many other prefab structures around the Central Valley recently had to re-negotiate a loan for a new development he thought was a done deal because the bank got scared…watch for more of that!
“If you are going to claim to be on the committee, please post under your name. Otherwise, it is disingenuous at best to make such claims.”
Funny that the person who published pamphlets calling himself CAROLE criticizes someone else for posting as anonymous.
“If you are going to claim to be on the committee, please post under your name. Otherwise, it is disingenuous at best to make such claims.”
Funny that the person who published pamphlets calling himself CAROLE criticizes someone else for posting as anonymous.
“If you are going to claim to be on the committee, please post under your name. Otherwise, it is disingenuous at best to make such claims.”
Funny that the person who published pamphlets calling himself CAROLE criticizes someone else for posting as anonymous.
“If you are going to claim to be on the committee, please post under your name. Otherwise, it is disingenuous at best to make such claims.”
Funny that the person who published pamphlets calling himself CAROLE criticizes someone else for posting as anonymous.
“Funny that the person who published pamphlets calling himself CAROLE criticizes someone else for posting as anonymous.”
And you know this how?
Regardless, I think his point was that if someone claims to have been on the committee, they ought to post under their name. Anyone can claim to be on the committee. I could claim it, I wasn’t on the committee, but how would you know either way?
“Funny that the person who published pamphlets calling himself CAROLE criticizes someone else for posting as anonymous.”
And you know this how?
Regardless, I think his point was that if someone claims to have been on the committee, they ought to post under their name. Anyone can claim to be on the committee. I could claim it, I wasn’t on the committee, but how would you know either way?
“Funny that the person who published pamphlets calling himself CAROLE criticizes someone else for posting as anonymous.”
And you know this how?
Regardless, I think his point was that if someone claims to have been on the committee, they ought to post under their name. Anyone can claim to be on the committee. I could claim it, I wasn’t on the committee, but how would you know either way?
“Funny that the person who published pamphlets calling himself CAROLE criticizes someone else for posting as anonymous.”
And you know this how?
Regardless, I think his point was that if someone claims to have been on the committee, they ought to post under their name. Anyone can claim to be on the committee. I could claim it, I wasn’t on the committee, but how would you know either way?
What is CAROLE?
What is CAROLE?
What is CAROLE?
What is CAROLE?
First, I want to clarify, again, that I am in support of mixed use at the Hunt Wesson of a housing and a small business/office park. A ratio roughly, of 2/3 housing to 1/3 business/office would make sense because it would allow a project to still have a neighborhood feel allowing some jobs and offering workforce housing. This way you would have a neighborhood with a small office/business park, rather then a large business park with some housing units (i.e. which would not have much of a neighborhood character).The housing would, of course need to be affordable and the project should continue to have input from the community to design it like the last four public input meetings over the last year or so.
Another point is that I left a few words out of my last posting that I will add in below in bold to clarify:
The Business and Economic Commission (BEDC) last Monday made it clear that to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech is not wise when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche. If Genentech were to sell, then there may be a number of facility closures. This would be quite risky to have so much land vested in one privatized company.
The other obvious issue is compatibility. The idea of placing a huge high tech or huge business park in the middle of a residential neighborhood is simply not a good fit. The volume of large truck traffic would be much greater which is not what you want going through residential neighborhoods.
Finally, let’s please try to focus on the issue’s and have this dialog be a positive one. The Vanguard has been a great source of community information and dialog amongst Davis residents about the issues that concern us the most. So please let’s try to talk to each other rather than post insults.
-Eileen
First, I want to clarify, again, that I am in support of mixed use at the Hunt Wesson of a housing and a small business/office park. A ratio roughly, of 2/3 housing to 1/3 business/office would make sense because it would allow a project to still have a neighborhood feel allowing some jobs and offering workforce housing. This way you would have a neighborhood with a small office/business park, rather then a large business park with some housing units (i.e. which would not have much of a neighborhood character).The housing would, of course need to be affordable and the project should continue to have input from the community to design it like the last four public input meetings over the last year or so.
Another point is that I left a few words out of my last posting that I will add in below in bold to clarify:
The Business and Economic Commission (BEDC) last Monday made it clear that to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech is not wise when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche. If Genentech were to sell, then there may be a number of facility closures. This would be quite risky to have so much land vested in one privatized company.
The other obvious issue is compatibility. The idea of placing a huge high tech or huge business park in the middle of a residential neighborhood is simply not a good fit. The volume of large truck traffic would be much greater which is not what you want going through residential neighborhoods.
Finally, let’s please try to focus on the issue’s and have this dialog be a positive one. The Vanguard has been a great source of community information and dialog amongst Davis residents about the issues that concern us the most. So please let’s try to talk to each other rather than post insults.
-Eileen
First, I want to clarify, again, that I am in support of mixed use at the Hunt Wesson of a housing and a small business/office park. A ratio roughly, of 2/3 housing to 1/3 business/office would make sense because it would allow a project to still have a neighborhood feel allowing some jobs and offering workforce housing. This way you would have a neighborhood with a small office/business park, rather then a large business park with some housing units (i.e. which would not have much of a neighborhood character).The housing would, of course need to be affordable and the project should continue to have input from the community to design it like the last four public input meetings over the last year or so.
Another point is that I left a few words out of my last posting that I will add in below in bold to clarify:
The Business and Economic Commission (BEDC) last Monday made it clear that to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech is not wise when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche. If Genentech were to sell, then there may be a number of facility closures. This would be quite risky to have so much land vested in one privatized company.
The other obvious issue is compatibility. The idea of placing a huge high tech or huge business park in the middle of a residential neighborhood is simply not a good fit. The volume of large truck traffic would be much greater which is not what you want going through residential neighborhoods.
Finally, let’s please try to focus on the issue’s and have this dialog be a positive one. The Vanguard has been a great source of community information and dialog amongst Davis residents about the issues that concern us the most. So please let’s try to talk to each other rather than post insults.
-Eileen
First, I want to clarify, again, that I am in support of mixed use at the Hunt Wesson of a housing and a small business/office park. A ratio roughly, of 2/3 housing to 1/3 business/office would make sense because it would allow a project to still have a neighborhood feel allowing some jobs and offering workforce housing. This way you would have a neighborhood with a small office/business park, rather then a large business park with some housing units (i.e. which would not have much of a neighborhood character).The housing would, of course need to be affordable and the project should continue to have input from the community to design it like the last four public input meetings over the last year or so.
Another point is that I left a few words out of my last posting that I will add in below in bold to clarify:
The Business and Economic Commission (BEDC) last Monday made it clear that to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech is not wise when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche. If Genentech were to sell, then there may be a number of facility closures. This would be quite risky to have so much land vested in one privatized company.
The other obvious issue is compatibility. The idea of placing a huge high tech or huge business park in the middle of a residential neighborhood is simply not a good fit. The volume of large truck traffic would be much greater which is not what you want going through residential neighborhoods.
Finally, let’s please try to focus on the issue’s and have this dialog be a positive one. The Vanguard has been a great source of community information and dialog amongst Davis residents about the issues that concern us the most. So please let’s try to talk to each other rather than post insults.
-Eileen
Eileen, I am addressing this to you, as you have become the chief spokesperson advocating for the Lewis Homes project.
There is no reason why that site has to be developed now. None.
No one is buying homes other than foreclosed ones.
Most of the land speculators are bankrupt.
There is ZERO pressure to develop any significant Davis land.
So, why are you shilling for Lewis Homes?
It’s a bad plan. No one needs it. They are stiffing the community in terms of migigation.
Why are you shilling for them? Answer.
Mike
Eileen, I am addressing this to you, as you have become the chief spokesperson advocating for the Lewis Homes project.
There is no reason why that site has to be developed now. None.
No one is buying homes other than foreclosed ones.
Most of the land speculators are bankrupt.
There is ZERO pressure to develop any significant Davis land.
So, why are you shilling for Lewis Homes?
It’s a bad plan. No one needs it. They are stiffing the community in terms of migigation.
Why are you shilling for them? Answer.
Mike
Eileen, I am addressing this to you, as you have become the chief spokesperson advocating for the Lewis Homes project.
There is no reason why that site has to be developed now. None.
No one is buying homes other than foreclosed ones.
Most of the land speculators are bankrupt.
There is ZERO pressure to develop any significant Davis land.
So, why are you shilling for Lewis Homes?
It’s a bad plan. No one needs it. They are stiffing the community in terms of migigation.
Why are you shilling for them? Answer.
Mike
Eileen, I am addressing this to you, as you have become the chief spokesperson advocating for the Lewis Homes project.
There is no reason why that site has to be developed now. None.
No one is buying homes other than foreclosed ones.
Most of the land speculators are bankrupt.
There is ZERO pressure to develop any significant Davis land.
So, why are you shilling for Lewis Homes?
It’s a bad plan. No one needs it. They are stiffing the community in terms of migigation.
Why are you shilling for them? Answer.
Mike
“to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech is not wise when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche.”
This is disingenuous. It implies that a 100 percent business park use would be a single user. It doesn’t.
“to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech is not wise when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche.”
This is disingenuous. It implies that a 100 percent business park use would be a single user. It doesn’t.
“to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech is not wise when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche.”
This is disingenuous. It implies that a 100 percent business park use would be a single user. It doesn’t.
“to “put all of our eggs in one basket” of 100 acres of high tech is not wise when a business such as Genentech may be bought by Roche.”
This is disingenuous. It implies that a 100 percent business park use would be a single user. It doesn’t.
In response to Mike’s condescending comment, the question of what will be done with the Hunt Wesson site has been raised by the city. I am weighing in to express the opinion of many, including the No on Measure X campaign steering committee who made the point (included in the literature) that if housing were to happen, that the Hunt Wesson site was a better alternative than paving over 400 acres of mostly prime ag land at the Covell Village site. It makes sense that if something is going to be built on the Hunt Wesson site, because it has so much residential around it, that a mixed use of residential and some office/business park would be the best fit. If some housing is to occur at some point this is a logical infill site since it has been an abandoned factory site vacant for at least 8 years and is within the city limits, rather than annexing in ag land.
If Mike had attended any of the public outreach meetings on this site he would know that the plan, so far, has been due to the input by the community. Since the city is addressing the decision of what to do with the Hunt Wesson site, I am reiterating that a mixed use compatible with the nearby neighborhoods makes the most sense at this site, rather than a huge business/high tech park which would bring alot of truck traffic.
Also, on the point about how a large user like Genentech would be a huge risk for Davis, I was reiterating a point made by one of the Business and Economic Commissioners (BEDC) who is a business owner and worked in the high tech industry himself. So I think that it is unfair to accuse of him being disingenuous since he works in the industry, and in fact, I think that the BEDC Commissioner had a valid point.
In response to Mike’s condescending comment, the question of what will be done with the Hunt Wesson site has been raised by the city. I am weighing in to express the opinion of many, including the No on Measure X campaign steering committee who made the point (included in the literature) that if housing were to happen, that the Hunt Wesson site was a better alternative than paving over 400 acres of mostly prime ag land at the Covell Village site. It makes sense that if something is going to be built on the Hunt Wesson site, because it has so much residential around it, that a mixed use of residential and some office/business park would be the best fit. If some housing is to occur at some point this is a logical infill site since it has been an abandoned factory site vacant for at least 8 years and is within the city limits, rather than annexing in ag land.
If Mike had attended any of the public outreach meetings on this site he would know that the plan, so far, has been due to the input by the community. Since the city is addressing the decision of what to do with the Hunt Wesson site, I am reiterating that a mixed use compatible with the nearby neighborhoods makes the most sense at this site, rather than a huge business/high tech park which would bring alot of truck traffic.
Also, on the point about how a large user like Genentech would be a huge risk for Davis, I was reiterating a point made by one of the Business and Economic Commissioners (BEDC) who is a business owner and worked in the high tech industry himself. So I think that it is unfair to accuse of him being disingenuous since he works in the industry, and in fact, I think that the BEDC Commissioner had a valid point.
In response to Mike’s condescending comment, the question of what will be done with the Hunt Wesson site has been raised by the city. I am weighing in to express the opinion of many, including the No on Measure X campaign steering committee who made the point (included in the literature) that if housing were to happen, that the Hunt Wesson site was a better alternative than paving over 400 acres of mostly prime ag land at the Covell Village site. It makes sense that if something is going to be built on the Hunt Wesson site, because it has so much residential around it, that a mixed use of residential and some office/business park would be the best fit. If some housing is to occur at some point this is a logical infill site since it has been an abandoned factory site vacant for at least 8 years and is within the city limits, rather than annexing in ag land.
If Mike had attended any of the public outreach meetings on this site he would know that the plan, so far, has been due to the input by the community. Since the city is addressing the decision of what to do with the Hunt Wesson site, I am reiterating that a mixed use compatible with the nearby neighborhoods makes the most sense at this site, rather than a huge business/high tech park which would bring alot of truck traffic.
Also, on the point about how a large user like Genentech would be a huge risk for Davis, I was reiterating a point made by one of the Business and Economic Commissioners (BEDC) who is a business owner and worked in the high tech industry himself. So I think that it is unfair to accuse of him being disingenuous since he works in the industry, and in fact, I think that the BEDC Commissioner had a valid point.
In response to Mike’s condescending comment, the question of what will be done with the Hunt Wesson site has been raised by the city. I am weighing in to express the opinion of many, including the No on Measure X campaign steering committee who made the point (included in the literature) that if housing were to happen, that the Hunt Wesson site was a better alternative than paving over 400 acres of mostly prime ag land at the Covell Village site. It makes sense that if something is going to be built on the Hunt Wesson site, because it has so much residential around it, that a mixed use of residential and some office/business park would be the best fit. If some housing is to occur at some point this is a logical infill site since it has been an abandoned factory site vacant for at least 8 years and is within the city limits, rather than annexing in ag land.
If Mike had attended any of the public outreach meetings on this site he would know that the plan, so far, has been due to the input by the community. Since the city is addressing the decision of what to do with the Hunt Wesson site, I am reiterating that a mixed use compatible with the nearby neighborhoods makes the most sense at this site, rather than a huge business/high tech park which would bring alot of truck traffic.
Also, on the point about how a large user like Genentech would be a huge risk for Davis, I was reiterating a point made by one of the Business and Economic Commissioners (BEDC) who is a business owner and worked in the high tech industry himself. So I think that it is unfair to accuse of him being disingenuous since he works in the industry, and in fact, I think that the BEDC Commissioner had a valid point.
Nobody is disputing the point of the risk of a single user. The point is whether or not that is the ONLY option for a 100 percent *business park* use, which, admittedly was considered infeasible by the report. That is why I revert to my original comment that the correct mix is that which allows just enough housing for the project to pencil out so that a mostly business park project actually comes to fruition.
That it needs to be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods is a weak argument. The site has nothing to the north and east, and two MAJOR infrastructure barriers (railroad and F street, Covell Blvd) to the west and south. In fact, the argument simply makes no sense. Especially given your opinion that mixed use makes sense on the site. Residential and business park in close proximity to each other make sense on the site but business park with residential further away doesn’t??
Nobody is disputing the point of the risk of a single user. The point is whether or not that is the ONLY option for a 100 percent *business park* use, which, admittedly was considered infeasible by the report. That is why I revert to my original comment that the correct mix is that which allows just enough housing for the project to pencil out so that a mostly business park project actually comes to fruition.
That it needs to be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods is a weak argument. The site has nothing to the north and east, and two MAJOR infrastructure barriers (railroad and F street, Covell Blvd) to the west and south. In fact, the argument simply makes no sense. Especially given your opinion that mixed use makes sense on the site. Residential and business park in close proximity to each other make sense on the site but business park with residential further away doesn’t??
Nobody is disputing the point of the risk of a single user. The point is whether or not that is the ONLY option for a 100 percent *business park* use, which, admittedly was considered infeasible by the report. That is why I revert to my original comment that the correct mix is that which allows just enough housing for the project to pencil out so that a mostly business park project actually comes to fruition.
That it needs to be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods is a weak argument. The site has nothing to the north and east, and two MAJOR infrastructure barriers (railroad and F street, Covell Blvd) to the west and south. In fact, the argument simply makes no sense. Especially given your opinion that mixed use makes sense on the site. Residential and business park in close proximity to each other make sense on the site but business park with residential further away doesn’t??
Nobody is disputing the point of the risk of a single user. The point is whether or not that is the ONLY option for a 100 percent *business park* use, which, admittedly was considered infeasible by the report. That is why I revert to my original comment that the correct mix is that which allows just enough housing for the project to pencil out so that a mostly business park project actually comes to fruition.
That it needs to be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods is a weak argument. The site has nothing to the north and east, and two MAJOR infrastructure barriers (railroad and F street, Covell Blvd) to the west and south. In fact, the argument simply makes no sense. Especially given your opinion that mixed use makes sense on the site. Residential and business park in close proximity to each other make sense on the site but business park with residential further away doesn’t??
In response to the previous anonymous comment, the point I am making is that a 100% business park, when there significant surrounding residential, is not compatible. However, to have residential with a small amount of office/business park can work well. I know because I live in such a neighborhood. However, if it were a large business park I do not think that would work well especially for the residents, since it would not have much of a neighborhood character. Again, I think that approximately two-thirds housing with a small office/business park would still have a neighborhood feel and be most compatible with the other nearby neighborhoods (which you seem to be discounting).
In response to the previous anonymous comment, the point I am making is that a 100% business park, when there significant surrounding residential, is not compatible. However, to have residential with a small amount of office/business park can work well. I know because I live in such a neighborhood. However, if it were a large business park I do not think that would work well especially for the residents, since it would not have much of a neighborhood character. Again, I think that approximately two-thirds housing with a small office/business park would still have a neighborhood feel and be most compatible with the other nearby neighborhoods (which you seem to be discounting).
In response to the previous anonymous comment, the point I am making is that a 100% business park, when there significant surrounding residential, is not compatible. However, to have residential with a small amount of office/business park can work well. I know because I live in such a neighborhood. However, if it were a large business park I do not think that would work well especially for the residents, since it would not have much of a neighborhood character. Again, I think that approximately two-thirds housing with a small office/business park would still have a neighborhood feel and be most compatible with the other nearby neighborhoods (which you seem to be discounting).
In response to the previous anonymous comment, the point I am making is that a 100% business park, when there significant surrounding residential, is not compatible. However, to have residential with a small amount of office/business park can work well. I know because I live in such a neighborhood. However, if it were a large business park I do not think that would work well especially for the residents, since it would not have much of a neighborhood character. Again, I think that approximately two-thirds housing with a small office/business park would still have a neighborhood feel and be most compatible with the other nearby neighborhoods (which you seem to be discounting).
“There is ZERO pressure to develop any significant Davis land. So, why are you (Eileen) shilling for Lewis Homes?”
It’s this abusive tone which made Mike Harrington such a lousy city councilman. Mike would rather shout at someone than think about an issue.
If Lewis builds housing on the cannery site in the next years, it will be that company’s read on the housing market that the demand exists. What Mike Harrington cannot understand is that market conditions will be different in 2010-2015, when this housing comes on line.
“Why are you shilling for them? Answer.”
Why are you still abusive?
“There is ZERO pressure to develop any significant Davis land. So, why are you (Eileen) shilling for Lewis Homes?”
It’s this abusive tone which made Mike Harrington such a lousy city councilman. Mike would rather shout at someone than think about an issue.
If Lewis builds housing on the cannery site in the next years, it will be that company’s read on the housing market that the demand exists. What Mike Harrington cannot understand is that market conditions will be different in 2010-2015, when this housing comes on line.
“Why are you shilling for them? Answer.”
Why are you still abusive?
“There is ZERO pressure to develop any significant Davis land. So, why are you (Eileen) shilling for Lewis Homes?”
It’s this abusive tone which made Mike Harrington such a lousy city councilman. Mike would rather shout at someone than think about an issue.
If Lewis builds housing on the cannery site in the next years, it will be that company’s read on the housing market that the demand exists. What Mike Harrington cannot understand is that market conditions will be different in 2010-2015, when this housing comes on line.
“Why are you shilling for them? Answer.”
Why are you still abusive?
“There is ZERO pressure to develop any significant Davis land. So, why are you (Eileen) shilling for Lewis Homes?”
It’s this abusive tone which made Mike Harrington such a lousy city councilman. Mike would rather shout at someone than think about an issue.
If Lewis builds housing on the cannery site in the next years, it will be that company’s read on the housing market that the demand exists. What Mike Harrington cannot understand is that market conditions will be different in 2010-2015, when this housing comes on line.
“Why are you shilling for them? Answer.”
Why are you still abusive?
Look folks, we need to stick to the issues rather than personalities or personal attacks. Future personal attacks will be removed without notice.
Look folks, we need to stick to the issues rather than personalities or personal attacks. Future personal attacks will be removed without notice.
Look folks, we need to stick to the issues rather than personalities or personal attacks. Future personal attacks will be removed without notice.
Look folks, we need to stick to the issues rather than personalities or personal attacks. Future personal attacks will be removed without notice.
However, if it were a large business park I do not think that would work well especially for the residents, since it would not have much of a neighborhood character. Again, I think that approximately two-thirds housing with a small office/business park would still have a neighborhood feel and be most compatible with the other nearby neighborhoods (which you seem to be discounting).
First, anecdotal evidence regarding personal experience isn’t sound logic for long term planning decisions.
Second, if we reduce the business park use, we don’t have enough REVENUE GENERATING land for the next 20-25 years, or, more importantly, the next General Plan cycle. As stated before, there are many locations for residential in town. There are very few for business parks. This is where the Davis economy is headed. We don’t want to lose ideas and ingenuity coming out of UCD to other communities.
It’s apparent that proponents of significant housing on Lewis are doing so to avoid development on Covell Village than for what’s really best for the Cannery Park site.
However, if it were a large business park I do not think that would work well especially for the residents, since it would not have much of a neighborhood character. Again, I think that approximately two-thirds housing with a small office/business park would still have a neighborhood feel and be most compatible with the other nearby neighborhoods (which you seem to be discounting).
First, anecdotal evidence regarding personal experience isn’t sound logic for long term planning decisions.
Second, if we reduce the business park use, we don’t have enough REVENUE GENERATING land for the next 20-25 years, or, more importantly, the next General Plan cycle. As stated before, there are many locations for residential in town. There are very few for business parks. This is where the Davis economy is headed. We don’t want to lose ideas and ingenuity coming out of UCD to other communities.
It’s apparent that proponents of significant housing on Lewis are doing so to avoid development on Covell Village than for what’s really best for the Cannery Park site.
However, if it were a large business park I do not think that would work well especially for the residents, since it would not have much of a neighborhood character. Again, I think that approximately two-thirds housing with a small office/business park would still have a neighborhood feel and be most compatible with the other nearby neighborhoods (which you seem to be discounting).
First, anecdotal evidence regarding personal experience isn’t sound logic for long term planning decisions.
Second, if we reduce the business park use, we don’t have enough REVENUE GENERATING land for the next 20-25 years, or, more importantly, the next General Plan cycle. As stated before, there are many locations for residential in town. There are very few for business parks. This is where the Davis economy is headed. We don’t want to lose ideas and ingenuity coming out of UCD to other communities.
It’s apparent that proponents of significant housing on Lewis are doing so to avoid development on Covell Village than for what’s really best for the Cannery Park site.
However, if it were a large business park I do not think that would work well especially for the residents, since it would not have much of a neighborhood character. Again, I think that approximately two-thirds housing with a small office/business park would still have a neighborhood feel and be most compatible with the other nearby neighborhoods (which you seem to be discounting).
First, anecdotal evidence regarding personal experience isn’t sound logic for long term planning decisions.
Second, if we reduce the business park use, we don’t have enough REVENUE GENERATING land for the next 20-25 years, or, more importantly, the next General Plan cycle. As stated before, there are many locations for residential in town. There are very few for business parks. This is where the Davis economy is headed. We don’t want to lose ideas and ingenuity coming out of UCD to other communities.
It’s apparent that proponents of significant housing on Lewis are doing so to avoid development on Covell Village than for what’s really best for the Cannery Park site.
I would note the following:
1) Davis needs more commercial development, bc the city needs more tax revenue. If it were possible to find business for all of the Cannery property, that would be best, provided the business was a good fit, e.g. no big trucks coming through. The fact of the matter is we are faced w huge unfunded unmet needs in our city, w no way to pay for it. More housing will mean the need for more city services we cannot fund or afford.
2) It might be easier to attract business if the entire parcel is available rather than only a portion.
3) To say “affordable” housing is desirable on the Cannery site is way too vague. That term could mean anything. Is it a reference to low-income housing, or lower priced workforce housing?
4) However, mixed use probably would be an easier sell to the City Council – not sure that is a good reason to have mixed use – to cater to the CC.
5) Even thinking of building housing right now, w the mortgage meltdown, is insane, until we see how things are going to settle out.
6) The BEDC needs to make more of an effort to attract business here, and sort through whether developers are gaming the system by purposely discouraging business to come here. There should be a penalty for that, if it is truly going on.
7) The Cannery is zoned light industrial. I’m not sure we should really change that. Developers are hoping that if they keep using underhanded tactics to discourage business from coming, they will be able to maximize profits by building housing. Fine – then they can pay ALL THE COSTS to the city that will be entailed – including perhaps a fourth fire station if needed? If the developers had to truly absorb ALL THE COSTS TO THE CITY of housing development, they might not be so eager to build more housing as they are now!
I would note the following:
1) Davis needs more commercial development, bc the city needs more tax revenue. If it were possible to find business for all of the Cannery property, that would be best, provided the business was a good fit, e.g. no big trucks coming through. The fact of the matter is we are faced w huge unfunded unmet needs in our city, w no way to pay for it. More housing will mean the need for more city services we cannot fund or afford.
2) It might be easier to attract business if the entire parcel is available rather than only a portion.
3) To say “affordable” housing is desirable on the Cannery site is way too vague. That term could mean anything. Is it a reference to low-income housing, or lower priced workforce housing?
4) However, mixed use probably would be an easier sell to the City Council – not sure that is a good reason to have mixed use – to cater to the CC.
5) Even thinking of building housing right now, w the mortgage meltdown, is insane, until we see how things are going to settle out.
6) The BEDC needs to make more of an effort to attract business here, and sort through whether developers are gaming the system by purposely discouraging business to come here. There should be a penalty for that, if it is truly going on.
7) The Cannery is zoned light industrial. I’m not sure we should really change that. Developers are hoping that if they keep using underhanded tactics to discourage business from coming, they will be able to maximize profits by building housing. Fine – then they can pay ALL THE COSTS to the city that will be entailed – including perhaps a fourth fire station if needed? If the developers had to truly absorb ALL THE COSTS TO THE CITY of housing development, they might not be so eager to build more housing as they are now!
I would note the following:
1) Davis needs more commercial development, bc the city needs more tax revenue. If it were possible to find business for all of the Cannery property, that would be best, provided the business was a good fit, e.g. no big trucks coming through. The fact of the matter is we are faced w huge unfunded unmet needs in our city, w no way to pay for it. More housing will mean the need for more city services we cannot fund or afford.
2) It might be easier to attract business if the entire parcel is available rather than only a portion.
3) To say “affordable” housing is desirable on the Cannery site is way too vague. That term could mean anything. Is it a reference to low-income housing, or lower priced workforce housing?
4) However, mixed use probably would be an easier sell to the City Council – not sure that is a good reason to have mixed use – to cater to the CC.
5) Even thinking of building housing right now, w the mortgage meltdown, is insane, until we see how things are going to settle out.
6) The BEDC needs to make more of an effort to attract business here, and sort through whether developers are gaming the system by purposely discouraging business to come here. There should be a penalty for that, if it is truly going on.
7) The Cannery is zoned light industrial. I’m not sure we should really change that. Developers are hoping that if they keep using underhanded tactics to discourage business from coming, they will be able to maximize profits by building housing. Fine – then they can pay ALL THE COSTS to the city that will be entailed – including perhaps a fourth fire station if needed? If the developers had to truly absorb ALL THE COSTS TO THE CITY of housing development, they might not be so eager to build more housing as they are now!
I would note the following:
1) Davis needs more commercial development, bc the city needs more tax revenue. If it were possible to find business for all of the Cannery property, that would be best, provided the business was a good fit, e.g. no big trucks coming through. The fact of the matter is we are faced w huge unfunded unmet needs in our city, w no way to pay for it. More housing will mean the need for more city services we cannot fund or afford.
2) It might be easier to attract business if the entire parcel is available rather than only a portion.
3) To say “affordable” housing is desirable on the Cannery site is way too vague. That term could mean anything. Is it a reference to low-income housing, or lower priced workforce housing?
4) However, mixed use probably would be an easier sell to the City Council – not sure that is a good reason to have mixed use – to cater to the CC.
5) Even thinking of building housing right now, w the mortgage meltdown, is insane, until we see how things are going to settle out.
6) The BEDC needs to make more of an effort to attract business here, and sort through whether developers are gaming the system by purposely discouraging business to come here. There should be a penalty for that, if it is truly going on.
7) The Cannery is zoned light industrial. I’m not sure we should really change that. Developers are hoping that if they keep using underhanded tactics to discourage business from coming, they will be able to maximize profits by building housing. Fine – then they can pay ALL THE COSTS to the city that will be entailed – including perhaps a fourth fire station if needed? If the developers had to truly absorb ALL THE COSTS TO THE CITY of housing development, they might not be so eager to build more housing as they are now!
I have a copy of the No on X literature in front of me. There were two references to the Hunt Wesson site. Here they are.
Better Alternatives:
"Ther are already sites within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt-Wesson site, that could be developed rather than adding a new, peripheral sub-division."
Also,
Smart Growth: "Covell Village violates……….. Smart growth advocates preserving farm land and redevelopment of vacant land within a city. There are roughly 200 acres already in the City that are suitable for building housing including the Hunt-Wesson and the PG&E sites."……
The No on X steering committee did all agree on this language.
However, I tend to agree with some other commentators including Mike Harrington re pushing for a relatively large housing development at this site now. I do agree that over 600 houses is too much and that if anything does occur on the CV property, and I believe it will eventually, we do get hit with the same traffic and air quality problems that the CV proposal would have brought.
When something does eventually go into this site, I would support a mixed use project with fewer houses, maybe more commercial/light industry, and more open space!
I have a copy of the No on X literature in front of me. There were two references to the Hunt Wesson site. Here they are.
Better Alternatives:
"Ther are already sites within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt-Wesson site, that could be developed rather than adding a new, peripheral sub-division."
Also,
Smart Growth: "Covell Village violates……….. Smart growth advocates preserving farm land and redevelopment of vacant land within a city. There are roughly 200 acres already in the City that are suitable for building housing including the Hunt-Wesson and the PG&E sites."……
The No on X steering committee did all agree on this language.
However, I tend to agree with some other commentators including Mike Harrington re pushing for a relatively large housing development at this site now. I do agree that over 600 houses is too much and that if anything does occur on the CV property, and I believe it will eventually, we do get hit with the same traffic and air quality problems that the CV proposal would have brought.
When something does eventually go into this site, I would support a mixed use project with fewer houses, maybe more commercial/light industry, and more open space!
I have a copy of the No on X literature in front of me. There were two references to the Hunt Wesson site. Here they are.
Better Alternatives:
"Ther are already sites within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt-Wesson site, that could be developed rather than adding a new, peripheral sub-division."
Also,
Smart Growth: "Covell Village violates……….. Smart growth advocates preserving farm land and redevelopment of vacant land within a city. There are roughly 200 acres already in the City that are suitable for building housing including the Hunt-Wesson and the PG&E sites."……
The No on X steering committee did all agree on this language.
However, I tend to agree with some other commentators including Mike Harrington re pushing for a relatively large housing development at this site now. I do agree that over 600 houses is too much and that if anything does occur on the CV property, and I believe it will eventually, we do get hit with the same traffic and air quality problems that the CV proposal would have brought.
When something does eventually go into this site, I would support a mixed use project with fewer houses, maybe more commercial/light industry, and more open space!
I have a copy of the No on X literature in front of me. There were two references to the Hunt Wesson site. Here they are.
Better Alternatives:
"Ther are already sites within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt-Wesson site, that could be developed rather than adding a new, peripheral sub-division."
Also,
Smart Growth: "Covell Village violates……….. Smart growth advocates preserving farm land and redevelopment of vacant land within a city. There are roughly 200 acres already in the City that are suitable for building housing including the Hunt-Wesson and the PG&E sites."……
The No on X steering committee did all agree on this language.
However, I tend to agree with some other commentators including Mike Harrington re pushing for a relatively large housing development at this site now. I do agree that over 600 houses is too much and that if anything does occur on the CV property, and I believe it will eventually, we do get hit with the same traffic and air quality problems that the CV proposal would have brought.
When something does eventually go into this site, I would support a mixed use project with fewer houses, maybe more commercial/light industry, and more open space!
Why are 600 houses too many?
Why are 600 houses too many?
Why are 600 houses too many?
Why are 600 houses too many?
My wife and I and our daughters worked diligently on the No on X Campaign years ago, and we remember fondly with appreciation the major efforts that many of you played in that fine effort. We clearly remember Eileen’s tireless committment and relentless attention to detail as the workload progressively increased and tempers flared during the critical final stretch before all of the votes were cast and victory was assured. During that period we found Eileen easy to work with, and her views on growth within Davis to be reasonable, responsible, and realistic.
We support the perspective that Eileen has long held and clearly stated here on the development of the Lewis-Cannery Property. We are disappointed that these views, Eileen’s position on growth, and Eileen’ integrity are being mischaracterized by other members of the Davis community. I remind critics of those who are doers that “rhetoric is cheap, result is dear”. Steve and Pegi Hayes, Davis, CA
My wife and I and our daughters worked diligently on the No on X Campaign years ago, and we remember fondly with appreciation the major efforts that many of you played in that fine effort. We clearly remember Eileen’s tireless committment and relentless attention to detail as the workload progressively increased and tempers flared during the critical final stretch before all of the votes were cast and victory was assured. During that period we found Eileen easy to work with, and her views on growth within Davis to be reasonable, responsible, and realistic.
We support the perspective that Eileen has long held and clearly stated here on the development of the Lewis-Cannery Property. We are disappointed that these views, Eileen’s position on growth, and Eileen’ integrity are being mischaracterized by other members of the Davis community. I remind critics of those who are doers that “rhetoric is cheap, result is dear”. Steve and Pegi Hayes, Davis, CA
My wife and I and our daughters worked diligently on the No on X Campaign years ago, and we remember fondly with appreciation the major efforts that many of you played in that fine effort. We clearly remember Eileen’s tireless committment and relentless attention to detail as the workload progressively increased and tempers flared during the critical final stretch before all of the votes were cast and victory was assured. During that period we found Eileen easy to work with, and her views on growth within Davis to be reasonable, responsible, and realistic.
We support the perspective that Eileen has long held and clearly stated here on the development of the Lewis-Cannery Property. We are disappointed that these views, Eileen’s position on growth, and Eileen’ integrity are being mischaracterized by other members of the Davis community. I remind critics of those who are doers that “rhetoric is cheap, result is dear”. Steve and Pegi Hayes, Davis, CA
My wife and I and our daughters worked diligently on the No on X Campaign years ago, and we remember fondly with appreciation the major efforts that many of you played in that fine effort. We clearly remember Eileen’s tireless committment and relentless attention to detail as the workload progressively increased and tempers flared during the critical final stretch before all of the votes were cast and victory was assured. During that period we found Eileen easy to work with, and her views on growth within Davis to be reasonable, responsible, and realistic.
We support the perspective that Eileen has long held and clearly stated here on the development of the Lewis-Cannery Property. We are disappointed that these views, Eileen’s position on growth, and Eileen’ integrity are being mischaracterized by other members of the Davis community. I remind critics of those who are doers that “rhetoric is cheap, result is dear”. Steve and Pegi Hayes, Davis, CA
Lewis Homes has done nothing to develop as commercial. Why would anyone expect them to? The development value is hugely higher for residential.
What about public financing of the infrastructure (roads, sewer, utilities), and pay it back by the sale of the lots to R&-), etc? I have not studied this, and never saw or worked through a proposal like this while on the CC 2000-04.
But if I had had to pay to develop D St when i built my office building in the mix of saving some old bungalows in 2002-03, I would not have been able to do it.
Anyone have any comments on a public financing project to get the right businesses into that space?
I hate to see the City's last large undeveloped parcel of commercial/R&-)/light industrial land (100 acres) default into unneeded housing because no one has explored how to get the infrastructure built.
Lewis Homes has done nothing to develop as commercial. Why would anyone expect them to? The development value is hugely higher for residential.
What about public financing of the infrastructure (roads, sewer, utilities), and pay it back by the sale of the lots to R&-), etc? I have not studied this, and never saw or worked through a proposal like this while on the CC 2000-04.
But if I had had to pay to develop D St when i built my office building in the mix of saving some old bungalows in 2002-03, I would not have been able to do it.
Anyone have any comments on a public financing project to get the right businesses into that space?
I hate to see the City's last large undeveloped parcel of commercial/R&-)/light industrial land (100 acres) default into unneeded housing because no one has explored how to get the infrastructure built.
Lewis Homes has done nothing to develop as commercial. Why would anyone expect them to? The development value is hugely higher for residential.
What about public financing of the infrastructure (roads, sewer, utilities), and pay it back by the sale of the lots to R&-), etc? I have not studied this, and never saw or worked through a proposal like this while on the CC 2000-04.
But if I had had to pay to develop D St when i built my office building in the mix of saving some old bungalows in 2002-03, I would not have been able to do it.
Anyone have any comments on a public financing project to get the right businesses into that space?
I hate to see the City's last large undeveloped parcel of commercial/R&-)/light industrial land (100 acres) default into unneeded housing because no one has explored how to get the infrastructure built.
Lewis Homes has done nothing to develop as commercial. Why would anyone expect them to? The development value is hugely higher for residential.
What about public financing of the infrastructure (roads, sewer, utilities), and pay it back by the sale of the lots to R&-), etc? I have not studied this, and never saw or worked through a proposal like this while on the CC 2000-04.
But if I had had to pay to develop D St when i built my office building in the mix of saving some old bungalows in 2002-03, I would not have been able to do it.
Anyone have any comments on a public financing project to get the right businesses into that space?
I hate to see the City's last large undeveloped parcel of commercial/R&-)/light industrial land (100 acres) default into unneeded housing because no one has explored how to get the infrastructure built.
Its amazing how Sue Greenwald can turn any situation into an argument against building housing. When prices are high she claimed supply and demand don’t effect the Davis market but when prices are low she argues we shouldn’t dedicate land to houses because the market won’t build them right away. The only consistancy in her position is that Sue Greenwald doesn’t want anyone else to move to Davis and own a home here. She claims to be a progressive but the only thing she cares about is progress in the value of the real estate she owns.
Its amazing how Sue Greenwald can turn any situation into an argument against building housing. When prices are high she claimed supply and demand don’t effect the Davis market but when prices are low she argues we shouldn’t dedicate land to houses because the market won’t build them right away. The only consistancy in her position is that Sue Greenwald doesn’t want anyone else to move to Davis and own a home here. She claims to be a progressive but the only thing she cares about is progress in the value of the real estate she owns.
Its amazing how Sue Greenwald can turn any situation into an argument against building housing. When prices are high she claimed supply and demand don’t effect the Davis market but when prices are low she argues we shouldn’t dedicate land to houses because the market won’t build them right away. The only consistancy in her position is that Sue Greenwald doesn’t want anyone else to move to Davis and own a home here. She claims to be a progressive but the only thing she cares about is progress in the value of the real estate she owns.
Its amazing how Sue Greenwald can turn any situation into an argument against building housing. When prices are high she claimed supply and demand don’t effect the Davis market but when prices are low she argues we shouldn’t dedicate land to houses because the market won’t build them right away. The only consistancy in her position is that Sue Greenwald doesn’t want anyone else to move to Davis and own a home here. She claims to be a progressive but the only thing she cares about is progress in the value of the real estate she owns.
Just saw a friend at the Davis Food Co-Op, and he mentioned using a commercial equivalent of the Mello-Roos assessments that were used for some residential development. Again, I have never worked with or studied financial tools used to develop the infrastructure for commercial in such a large parcel.
I’d really like to hear from anyone who knows about that subject.
Just saw a friend at the Davis Food Co-Op, and he mentioned using a commercial equivalent of the Mello-Roos assessments that were used for some residential development. Again, I have never worked with or studied financial tools used to develop the infrastructure for commercial in such a large parcel.
I’d really like to hear from anyone who knows about that subject.
Just saw a friend at the Davis Food Co-Op, and he mentioned using a commercial equivalent of the Mello-Roos assessments that were used for some residential development. Again, I have never worked with or studied financial tools used to develop the infrastructure for commercial in such a large parcel.
I’d really like to hear from anyone who knows about that subject.
Just saw a friend at the Davis Food Co-Op, and he mentioned using a commercial equivalent of the Mello-Roos assessments that were used for some residential development. Again, I have never worked with or studied financial tools used to develop the infrastructure for commercial in such a large parcel.
I’d really like to hear from anyone who knows about that subject.
Regarding comments about land availability within Davis for business parks there are a few important considerations. The recent commercial viability revealed that we have at least 73 acres of land zoned and available for business parks in Davis currently without the Hunt Wesson site. That is a huge amount of land available for office/business park within Davis, given the small size of of our city. In addition 20 more acres could result at the Hunt Wesson site as a one-third office/business park and two-thirds housing mixed use project. That would bring land available for office/business park up to 93 acres. Ninty-three acres is plenty of land available within Davis for this type of commercial use. Futhermore, we are not likely to lose much in the way of innovative business park users coming out of UCD because whether we like it or not, UCD is planning to build a business park on its campus.
Regarding comments about land availability within Davis for business parks there are a few important considerations. The recent commercial viability revealed that we have at least 73 acres of land zoned and available for business parks in Davis currently without the Hunt Wesson site. That is a huge amount of land available for office/business park within Davis, given the small size of of our city. In addition 20 more acres could result at the Hunt Wesson site as a one-third office/business park and two-thirds housing mixed use project. That would bring land available for office/business park up to 93 acres. Ninty-three acres is plenty of land available within Davis for this type of commercial use. Futhermore, we are not likely to lose much in the way of innovative business park users coming out of UCD because whether we like it or not, UCD is planning to build a business park on its campus.
Regarding comments about land availability within Davis for business parks there are a few important considerations. The recent commercial viability revealed that we have at least 73 acres of land zoned and available for business parks in Davis currently without the Hunt Wesson site. That is a huge amount of land available for office/business park within Davis, given the small size of of our city. In addition 20 more acres could result at the Hunt Wesson site as a one-third office/business park and two-thirds housing mixed use project. That would bring land available for office/business park up to 93 acres. Ninty-three acres is plenty of land available within Davis for this type of commercial use. Futhermore, we are not likely to lose much in the way of innovative business park users coming out of UCD because whether we like it or not, UCD is planning to build a business park on its campus.
Regarding comments about land availability within Davis for business parks there are a few important considerations. The recent commercial viability revealed that we have at least 73 acres of land zoned and available for business parks in Davis currently without the Hunt Wesson site. That is a huge amount of land available for office/business park within Davis, given the small size of of our city. In addition 20 more acres could result at the Hunt Wesson site as a one-third office/business park and two-thirds housing mixed use project. That would bring land available for office/business park up to 93 acres. Ninty-three acres is plenty of land available within Davis for this type of commercial use. Futhermore, we are not likely to lose much in the way of innovative business park users coming out of UCD because whether we like it or not, UCD is planning to build a business park on its campus.
Here’s a cheer for Eileen. Give the lady credit for donating incredible amounts of time and energy for her vision of a better Davis. We’re lucky to have her around.
Here’s a cheer for Eileen. Give the lady credit for donating incredible amounts of time and energy for her vision of a better Davis. We’re lucky to have her around.
Here’s a cheer for Eileen. Give the lady credit for donating incredible amounts of time and energy for her vision of a better Davis. We’re lucky to have her around.
Here’s a cheer for Eileen. Give the lady credit for donating incredible amounts of time and energy for her vision of a better Davis. We’re lucky to have her around.
I am a resident of more than seven years in the community directly west of the Hunt Wesson site. I have a wife and two young children here, and I note that many of my neighbors seem to have either moved in for about the same amount of time as myself or else have been here 20+ years.
My first comment to those on your blog site relates to the person posting at 10:106 AM on 9/28/08. Let me begin by first quoting you, as follows: “That it needs to be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods is a weak argument.”
Oh? Really? I’m wondering if YOU are one of my neighbors, also? Do you live here in my neighborhood? Do you also have elementary school-aged children living in this community? Here is why your argument that it is a weak argument is itself a weak argument. Those of us living here and are immediately impacted by the Hunt Wesson development do, in fact, care about what happens to this site, and yes, we feel that it needs to be compatible with our neighborhood. While in my perfect world I would prefer to see this plot of land left undeveloped, I understand that this is not a perfect world and as such, I am not anti-growth. I do not oppose housing development nor business development on this site. However, I know my neighbors, and I assure you that virtually no one in this neighborhood favors a 100% business complex, and the fact that there’d be a train track separating us from it is meaningless to me. I do sympathize with the fact that business space is shrinking in Davis so I understand why some favor this option, but further development should seek to integrate into the existing landscape, rather than take the attitude of: “Davis needs tax revenue, so let’s maximize this while ignoring the fact you could practically spit on a four-year-old little girl’s back yard from this site.”
The mixed-use option makes a lot of sense to those of us in the local trenches.
I am a resident of more than seven years in the community directly west of the Hunt Wesson site. I have a wife and two young children here, and I note that many of my neighbors seem to have either moved in for about the same amount of time as myself or else have been here 20+ years.
My first comment to those on your blog site relates to the person posting at 10:106 AM on 9/28/08. Let me begin by first quoting you, as follows: “That it needs to be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods is a weak argument.”
Oh? Really? I’m wondering if YOU are one of my neighbors, also? Do you live here in my neighborhood? Do you also have elementary school-aged children living in this community? Here is why your argument that it is a weak argument is itself a weak argument. Those of us living here and are immediately impacted by the Hunt Wesson development do, in fact, care about what happens to this site, and yes, we feel that it needs to be compatible with our neighborhood. While in my perfect world I would prefer to see this plot of land left undeveloped, I understand that this is not a perfect world and as such, I am not anti-growth. I do not oppose housing development nor business development on this site. However, I know my neighbors, and I assure you that virtually no one in this neighborhood favors a 100% business complex, and the fact that there’d be a train track separating us from it is meaningless to me. I do sympathize with the fact that business space is shrinking in Davis so I understand why some favor this option, but further development should seek to integrate into the existing landscape, rather than take the attitude of: “Davis needs tax revenue, so let’s maximize this while ignoring the fact you could practically spit on a four-year-old little girl’s back yard from this site.”
The mixed-use option makes a lot of sense to those of us in the local trenches.
I am a resident of more than seven years in the community directly west of the Hunt Wesson site. I have a wife and two young children here, and I note that many of my neighbors seem to have either moved in for about the same amount of time as myself or else have been here 20+ years.
My first comment to those on your blog site relates to the person posting at 10:106 AM on 9/28/08. Let me begin by first quoting you, as follows: “That it needs to be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods is a weak argument.”
Oh? Really? I’m wondering if YOU are one of my neighbors, also? Do you live here in my neighborhood? Do you also have elementary school-aged children living in this community? Here is why your argument that it is a weak argument is itself a weak argument. Those of us living here and are immediately impacted by the Hunt Wesson development do, in fact, care about what happens to this site, and yes, we feel that it needs to be compatible with our neighborhood. While in my perfect world I would prefer to see this plot of land left undeveloped, I understand that this is not a perfect world and as such, I am not anti-growth. I do not oppose housing development nor business development on this site. However, I know my neighbors, and I assure you that virtually no one in this neighborhood favors a 100% business complex, and the fact that there’d be a train track separating us from it is meaningless to me. I do sympathize with the fact that business space is shrinking in Davis so I understand why some favor this option, but further development should seek to integrate into the existing landscape, rather than take the attitude of: “Davis needs tax revenue, so let’s maximize this while ignoring the fact you could practically spit on a four-year-old little girl’s back yard from this site.”
The mixed-use option makes a lot of sense to those of us in the local trenches.
I am a resident of more than seven years in the community directly west of the Hunt Wesson site. I have a wife and two young children here, and I note that many of my neighbors seem to have either moved in for about the same amount of time as myself or else have been here 20+ years.
My first comment to those on your blog site relates to the person posting at 10:106 AM on 9/28/08. Let me begin by first quoting you, as follows: “That it needs to be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods is a weak argument.”
Oh? Really? I’m wondering if YOU are one of my neighbors, also? Do you live here in my neighborhood? Do you also have elementary school-aged children living in this community? Here is why your argument that it is a weak argument is itself a weak argument. Those of us living here and are immediately impacted by the Hunt Wesson development do, in fact, care about what happens to this site, and yes, we feel that it needs to be compatible with our neighborhood. While in my perfect world I would prefer to see this plot of land left undeveloped, I understand that this is not a perfect world and as such, I am not anti-growth. I do not oppose housing development nor business development on this site. However, I know my neighbors, and I assure you that virtually no one in this neighborhood favors a 100% business complex, and the fact that there’d be a train track separating us from it is meaningless to me. I do sympathize with the fact that business space is shrinking in Davis so I understand why some favor this option, but further development should seek to integrate into the existing landscape, rather than take the attitude of: “Davis needs tax revenue, so let’s maximize this while ignoring the fact you could practically spit on a four-year-old little girl’s back yard from this site.”
The mixed-use option makes a lot of sense to those of us in the local trenches.
Wow! Someone brought up C.A.R.O.L.E. I’ll bet ole david greenwald did’nt expect that. The C.A.R.O.L.E. project was something a chicken little group started after a disgustingly biased commission was disbanded in Davis.
The chicken little group consisted of, Mariko,Bill,David and Cecelia. There were probably some others involved but not one of them had the guts to step forward and take responsibility.
These are the kind of people we need to represent us and make decisions for the people? No guts and self serving, perfect politicians.
Wow! Someone brought up C.A.R.O.L.E. I’ll bet ole david greenwald did’nt expect that. The C.A.R.O.L.E. project was something a chicken little group started after a disgustingly biased commission was disbanded in Davis.
The chicken little group consisted of, Mariko,Bill,David and Cecelia. There were probably some others involved but not one of them had the guts to step forward and take responsibility.
These are the kind of people we need to represent us and make decisions for the people? No guts and self serving, perfect politicians.
Wow! Someone brought up C.A.R.O.L.E. I’ll bet ole david greenwald did’nt expect that. The C.A.R.O.L.E. project was something a chicken little group started after a disgustingly biased commission was disbanded in Davis.
The chicken little group consisted of, Mariko,Bill,David and Cecelia. There were probably some others involved but not one of them had the guts to step forward and take responsibility.
These are the kind of people we need to represent us and make decisions for the people? No guts and self serving, perfect politicians.
Wow! Someone brought up C.A.R.O.L.E. I’ll bet ole david greenwald did’nt expect that. The C.A.R.O.L.E. project was something a chicken little group started after a disgustingly biased commission was disbanded in Davis.
The chicken little group consisted of, Mariko,Bill,David and Cecelia. There were probably some others involved but not one of them had the guts to step forward and take responsibility.
These are the kind of people we need to represent us and make decisions for the people? No guts and self serving, perfect politicians.