The meaning of that vote was not clear, with many arguing, like Mayor Joe Krovoza, that staff recommendations 3 and 4 were very big steps which he said feels “like we’re crossing a chasm.” He noted, “I don’t feel the timing rush to move forward with the project now as opposed to a year from now” given the pipeline, other projects that have been approved and the weakness of the market.
The Mayor warned council and staff that he would vote no on this project every time unless there is a viable grade-separated crossing across Covell that allows for multimodal forms of transportation.
While the other four councilmembers aligned as they had last fall, the key question was where would Councilmember Dan Wolk come down.
Councilmember Wolk pointed out that the older cohort is growing and said, “we really need to account for that in our planning.”
He has, in the past, questioned whether we need to go forward and build housing right now.
In response to a question from Mr. Wolk as to whether the city could phase in this project “if we decide that now is not the best time to build housing,” Planning Director Ken Hiatt responded that by the time we get ready to say there is a house ready to occupy, it will be three years, with the rate and scope of build-out subject to council authority and the development agreement.
In his closing remarks, Dan Wolk argued that going forward at this time does not commit the city to anything. He argued, along with Stephen Souza in classic Souza fashion, that we are not initiating an EIR process tonight, but rather moving the ball along with some larger parameters, with the idea that this will come back in September with greater detail.
Ken Hiatt argued that this would be a 12 to 18 month process.
“If we were to push this along, this doesn’t commit us to any projects,” Councilmember Wolk added. “But it at least allows us to begin to formulate what this project is going to look like and I’m certainly interested in seeing how it shapes up.”
He did set parameters that included the need for fiscal neutrality, safe crossings, a housing mix that includes multi-generational housing and universal design, environmental sustainability, and finally phasing in the project in such a way that it does not flood the market with housing tomorrow.
There were many concerns raised both by the public and the council about fiscal neutrality. But Paul Navazio argued that, while the sensitivity analysis shows that the project and fiscal findings are very sensitive to base assumptions, he believes that we are close enough that when the final project actually comes forward with the kind of specificity needed to run a real fiscal analysis, that we are close enough that we are within the realm of being able to tweak the project enough to produce a net positive fiscal impact.
Several members of the business and real estate community came forward to speak for the project and against a larger business park. John Quick from Colliers International said he spent the good part of a year marketing this site to buyers and biotech all over Northern California.
The reaction was that he could not get a bite. The site was considered bad – no freeway access, it was an infill site. The perception from many was that they would never consider Davis even in an ideal situation, because it is too tough to do business, there are too many other sites with better prices and a less onerous and costly process.
Another individual talked about the challenges of having to bring Mori Seikly to Davis, and said they would choose ConAgra site as a last resort. They got the company to come to Davis because some land owners stepped up to provide land for manufacturing.
Choices for Healthy Aging attempted to insert themselves into the discussion, with Starr Hurley arguing that there is no commitment by ConAgra to what they called the CHA Model and thus CHA was unable to support the Cannery Park Development as currently proposed.
Mary Jo Bryan played the good cop, stating that the CHA position was not confrontational. That they had met four times with ConAgra and the project has come along way. They are no longer insisting on age-qualified development (as though they have that kind of leverage to begin with).
She said that currently the project defined in the staff report does not represent the needs identified by the “CHA Model.” She said this is what we mean when we say that CHA is unable to support the project. She asks to work closely with staff to make this work and that CHA wants to be part of planning our own future.
A large number of those opposed to the project were concerned about the fiscal viability of the project, as well as the timing for development.
Former Mayor Maynard Skinner opposed the project. His comments read into the record by Bill Ritter argued that, “The current project proposal is lacking in information that a normal site plan would contain. Proceeding with an EIR prior to having a plan is putting the cart before the horse.”
He argued against the need for housing and countered the notion that the Housing Update Steering Committee report should be binding, noting that the report was concluded “long before the full impact of the ‘Great Recession’ was understood.”
He noted, “Now we are in 2011 mid-year and we know that due to tough economic times the current housing inventory will last much longer.”
But the council, other than Sue Greenwald, missed a key point in this discussion, and that is that if the city is serious about economic development, the city is losing the largest entitled site for high tech or light industrial.
Indeed, while Councilmember Greenwald was arguing that this was a good site for high tech and arguing that many companies and business people had told of this, Rochelle Swanson was arguing the exact opposite, that the consistent answer she got from the business community is that Cannery Park is completely inappropriate for the type of monolithic business park that the council is seeking.
The argument is that it is too far from the highway and many are concerned, as well, about Davis’ onerous business requirements.
But the Mayor Pro Tem misses a key point, in that the site may not be ideal, but it is what we have now. Take that site out of circulation and the council is essentially rolling the proverbial dice on whether the city can get a Measure J project approved at the challenging and costly Nishi site located on Olive Drive, with limited access both to the east and west, or a site east of Mace, or in the Northwest Quadrant.
Nishi is a logistical challenge but east of Mace and Northwest Quadrant are potentially growth-inducing.
That brings us back to the “why now?” question, framed somewhat differently – why now, before getting the approval to go forward with other business sites? If this is indeed a three-year process, why the rush? Why now? It does not appear the economy is going to improve much in the next few years anyway, and certainly not the real estate market.
We shall see if this talk of process is truly a case where the council can apply the brakes at any time, or if this action merely, as Joe Krovoza indicates, sets the ball moving into a chasm from which we cannot stop the momentum of the project, even when we want to.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A few observations:
1. It is interesting that some opponents to this project, who supported Wildhorse Ranch, are using many of the same arguments they attempted to refute back then. A charitable view is that they were ultimately persuaded. A less charitable view is that their arguments depend upon whether they are getting paid or not by a developer.
2. Dan Wolk has political ambitions and perhaps opposing this type of project is not something that he thinks would be good for his young career. I don’t know him and have no reason to question his motives; just saying it could have been a consideration.
3. While I support our downtown business community I do not think they are necessarily experts on other types of businesses that could come to Davis, such as a hi-tech campus. I agree that as a traditional business park the site is poor, but the argument that I have heard is that it might work for a larger campus-type park. By moving forward on this project now we are losing that option and what do we gain?
4. The housing downturn accelerated this year and prices are dropping yet again with forecasts of further drops.
[quote]Mori Seikly [/quote]Nice insult to a firm we (the City) really wanted to attract… Mori Sekei might spell your name Dadiv Grenwaldy, in response, except they are too professional.
My first consideration in choosing a Councilperson is whether it is highly probable that they have political ambitions to get on the road to the State Assembly as this, for reasons of the campaign funds needed, makes them the captive of local “deep-pocket” special interests, principally developers. It looks like Dan Wolk will be following in the footsteps of those who trod that political road of self-interest.
I’d like to see Dan Wolk run for Congress next year.
As to the ConAgra proposal, I think Mayor Krovoza made a very strong point about the problem of this site: the developer needs to solve the ingress and egress problem over, under or on the railroad tracks. There needs to be a safe crossing for motor vehicle traffic (and for bikes and pedestrians) to and from F Street, probably somewhere near Grande or Anderson Road.
I don’t know how you can crack this nut.
There is an empty lot west of F Street and south of Anderson Road. Perhaps they could build an underpass or an overpass which lands on that lot and connects with F and Anderson.
I don’t know what the chance of convincing the PUC to allow an at-grade crossing is there. However, everyone who says they know says there is next to no chance. But if that could be done, it would be the best solution in my opinion.
A third possibility–probably too expensive, though–would be to build a sub-grade channel sided by retaining walls, say 20 feet deep and 300 yards long, for the train traffic to pass through this area. The trains would drop down 20 feet, travel a short distance and then climb back up to grade. If that were done, then it would be feasible to build a bridge at grade to connect with Grande or Anerson.
What I don’t see really working is stuffing all these new houses (or industrial users) onto the ConAgra site and feeding them in and out only on Covell.
I have been talking with the high-tech community for 12 years about the Con-Agra site and there has been a uniformly strong sentiment that it is a good site for high-technology. I mean uniformly.
Perhaps some of the people that Rochelle was talking with are working on competing projects in Solano County? I don’t know yet. All I know is that we rezoned our only significant high-tech zoned land to housing, and now we have no high-tech zoned land. I doubt that any county land will be annexed for high-tech. The hurdles are formidable, it would take years, and it would have opposition. And if it succeeded the city would not get much of the net revenue because we would have to negotiate a split with the county.
I had proposed a compromise of 50 percent neighborhood compatible, clean, quiet, landscaped, design reviewed high tech campus that would be an asset to the surrounding neighborhood. That would be about 40 acres. According to our feasibility study, 40 acres would take a very reasonable 15 years or so to build out according to historical absorption rates, and our recent absorption rates have been higher than our historical absorption rates.
I suggested that we would put in place performance standards to assure that the campus would generate no more traffic than the current proposal (the current project will generate quite a bit of traffic, and as a rule of thumb, even office generates about the same amount of traffic as housing and high-tech would probably generate less than office).
I pointed out that a high-tech campus would also generate less truck traffic than a neighborhood shopping center, and that it would provide the market for better cafes and restaurants at the Nugget shopping center because it would provide the lunch trade that restaurants and cafes need. I pointed out that I would love to have such a campus near my house (which is already near a campus) because it would make my neighborhood a more interesting place.
I pointed out that these days, young families want to very close to work, and that housing near jobs is considered more desirable. This represents what progressive, green, cutting edge planning would be.
I think this is the worst land use decision made by a council in the twelve years that I have been on the council.
I should add that the last council voted give the 50 percent high-tech campus equal weight in an EIR.
Kudos to Ruth Asmundson, who was the swing vote joining Lamar and myself.
Who would have thought that the previous council would be the council to make the decision for progressive planning and fiscal responsibility?
[i]”Kudos to Ruth Asmundson, who was the swing vote joining Lamar and myself.”[/i]
Ruth made that vote with the back-door promise that she would be the new ambassador to our ConAgra sister city in China.
I don’t think Dan will run against Garimendi. Remember that there is not a residency requirement for congress as there is for state legislative seats. The proposed districts would preclude Dan from moving up for some time.
Otherwise I agree Dan is doing a great job and made the right decision last night. As for land for a business park there is plenty of it just outside the city limits that Davis can annex. If Sue is lamenting that there is no place to build anything she has no one to blame but herself.
[quote]…captive of local ‘deep-pocket’ special interests, principally developers. It looks like Dan Wolk will be following in the footsteps of those who trod that political road of self-interest.[/quote]
It is my understanding that the “deep-pocket” developers in town (Tandem and Parlin in particular) are working [i]against[/i] this development. They don’t want their pet projects to be pushed to the back of the line. So if anyone is in their pocket, it would be the folks trying to kill this proposal.
[quote]We shall see if this talk of process is truly a case where the council can apply the brakes at any time, or if this action merely, as Joe Krovoza indicates, sets the ball moving into a chasm from which we cannot stop the momentum of the project, even when we want to.
[/quote]
I was disappointed in the decision last night, but sincerely hope that the City Council truly means what it says to make sure this project is FISCALLY NEUTRAL.
The decision is not over. This project has not been approved. The business park subcommittee of Rochelle and Joe Krovoza are coming back with recommendations. Are they going to recommend a large peripheral business park across from the Mace Curve at I-80? Are they going to recommend a business park in the Northwest quadrant? If so, how will citizens react? Such a park would require a vote.
Since the infrastructure costs would be far greater than at Con-Agra, the developers would need even more housing or freeway mall approvals to finance the infrastructure for a project across the Mace Curve than Con-Agra would. The tax split with the county would provide far, far less revenue than would a 50% neighborhood compatible high-tech campus at Hunt-Wesson.
Is the council majority, who claims to be pro-economic development, going to just zone away all of the high-tech campus land, or are they going to recommend approval of a large peripheral park which will no doubt require additional housing or other development in order to proceed?
At some point, the council majority is going to have to actually tell us what their plan is.
By the way, I attended the Mouri Seiki ground-breaking today. Their R&D building is knock-dead beautiful with an atrium garden in the interior, spectacular decor, etc. I spoke with two of the high-tech entrepreneurs who spoke against high-tech at Con Agra last night. They seem to be promoting a large Ramos development across the Mace Curve. Perhaps they saw Con-Agra as competition, since at least of them was very enthusiastic about the Con-Agra site two years ago.
At some point the council will have to decide if they want high-tech in Davis at all. Surely, they must realize that such a large annexation would face insurmountable political obstacles?
[i]”I don’t think Dan will run against Garimendi.”[/i]
John Garamendi is as weak an “incumbent” as you can find. He does not even live in his current District, the 10th, which was Tauscher’s district ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM6f7vdzXxE[/url]). He barely won, despite a huge edge in Democratic registration. And he has been in that seat for under 2 years.
Moreover, it looks to me like no one who is now represented by Garamendi will be eligible to vote for him in the new Davis district, which does include Garamendi’s mansion in Walnut Grove.
So if Dan Wolk wanted to, I think he could whip Garamendi in a primary. I know Garamendi has a name as a formerly statewide elected official. But the guy will be 67 years old when the primary for that seat arrives; and there are a lot more people in this new CD today who are represented by someone named Wolk than anyone named Garamendi.
I do agree with you that Dan Wolk won’t run. It’s not because he cannot win the seat. It’s that ousting an incumbent of your own party who has done nothing to embarrass the party is bad form.
Wow. This is amazing. Totally clueless or intentionally deceptive. Take your pick. No wonder the city is so screwed up.
@Sue Greenwald: “All I know is that we rezoned our only significant high-tech zoned land to housing, and now we have no high-tech zoned land.”
@ Sue Greenwald: “I think this is the worst land use decision made by a council in the twelve years that I have been on the council.”
And then she reverses herself without explanation about 7 hours later …
@ Sue Greenwald: “The decision is not over. This project has not been approved.”
I had the misfortune of having to sit through the ConAgra hearing last night. What the council did was (1) “accept” the ConAgra application (changing its status from a pre-application to a formal application), and (2) authorized the staff to hire an EIR consultant (at the developer’s expense) to help finalize the land plan that is required before an EIR can be initiated. What the council did NOT do is rezone the property or make any other land use decision.
Sue clearly doesn’t know what she’s talking about when it comes to high tech economic development, and her tedious monologues on this subject are deeply embarrassing and destructive to the city.
Voter 2012: Let me clarify. It put us on a path, but the path is not irrevocable. Hope that helps.
I completely agree with Mayor Krovoza and Rich that one of the major problems with the ConAgra plan is the lack of access to the site.
I find an interesting and ironic parallel between the current problems faced by the residents of Olive Drive in accessing downtown and the problems likely to be encountered by ConAgra residents attempting to exit their neighborhood. In the absence of an at grade crossing onto
F Street, which given the current resistance to such a crossing downtown, I think is very unlikely, residents will be able to enter and exit only onto Covell. Given that the current plan has only two access points which happen to be only a few yards apart on Covell, I feel this is likely to create an unacceptable amount of traffic on an already busy crosstown street.
A second point brought before the council last night with which I disagree is the idea that this is a comfortable walking distance from the Nugget shopping center. While this will be true for young people living near the southern end of the project, it certainly will not be true for seniors or anyone with limited mobility living near the center or northern parts of the project who will doubtless be car dependent for any activity outside their immediate community.
To Voter2012: please keep your comments specific to the issues and avoid personal characterizations. If you have some special expertise to bring to the subject regarding high tech economic development, that would be very useful.
[i]”I find an interesting and ironic parallel between the current problems faced by the residents of Olive Drive in accessing downtown and the problems likely to be encountered by ConAgra residents attempting to exit their neighborhood.”[/i]
I agree that it is strange that we might be approving a new development next to a rail line that down the road will have a very similar problem with what we are facing on Olive Drive, today.
However, I think the Olive Drive situation is probaly solvable. Maybe we can get the PUC there to approve a new at-grade crossing. My understanding is that it might be possible to get rid of the nearby crossing at Arboretum Drive in exchange for a new crossing at the Depot. That would mean no net increase in at-grade crossings.
But even if that cannot get done, there remains the option of a new pedestrian/bike subway or overpass to 2nd and L Street. The issue there is cost. I don’t know the numbers, but I would have to think redevelopment dollars could be used, if the community really wanted it. (I am surprised the Olive Drive people* are not petitioning right now for that type of use, given that the Davis RDA actually has something like $14 million which has not been allocated.)
By contrast, crossing the tracks east of F Street is a very tough nut to crack. The ConAgra crossing, unlike at Olive where it would only be for bikes and pedestrians, has to be one that motor vehicles can also use. I don’t think there is as good a chance to get PUC approval, because I don’t think there is a good at-grade swap-out option for those tracks. And it seems very hard to figure out where you can put an underpass or an overpass, given the way the west side of the tracks is developed**.
*I guess the reason they are not petitioning for an overpass or a subway is because they expect the City will eventually get an at-grade crossing between Slater’s Court and the SP Depot.
**Does anyone know what the status of the fallow land west of F, south of Anderson and east of the fenced in nature preserve at Northstar Park is? It does seem possible that you could build a road under the tracks at a northeast bias which returned to grade on that parcel and somehow intersected Anderson next to F Street. It would look strange, though.
Sue: What you wrote was crystal clear, and needs no further explanation from you. Please don’t try and patronize me.
Don: I’ll try and dial it back. As you can probably tell, I’m quite frustrated with the trajectory of the city.
@ Sue Greenwald: “I should add that the last council voted give the 50 percent high-tech campus equal weight in an EIR.”
This is another misleading statement. The last council voted to do an equal weight EIR analyzing the Lewis proposal and Sue’s 100% business park proposal. A 50/50 proposal was NOT given equal weight in an EIR.
Here is the relevant city document:
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/cannerypark/pdfs/docs/staff-reports/staff-report-20101026.pdf[/url]
Reference is to a December 2008 direction, by 4 to 1 vote, to
“d) Conduct an equal weight EIR analysis that evaluates the impacts of both the Cannery Park mixed use and Business Park concept with specific land use designation of non-residential uses.”
Also note from that staff report that:
— per the Housing Element Steering Committee, this site is considered an alternate, yellow-light site for housing development (yellow light sites are “to be considered for housing only if needed prior to 2013”);
— the Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC), in supporting the move to begin processing the application, indicates that the Business Park Viability Study “does show that a business park is viable”.
Voter2012: You are obviously much more deeply involved in this project than I am, and I’m sure you are right. I remember Ruth saying that she would be inclined to want 50% business park; it might not have made it into a motion, but the message was clear to the developers and they withdrew the project.
hpierce: Thanks for making fun of the guy writing on zero sleep. I’ll remember that.
David:
Please do get some sleep. I noticed your reply to hpierce was at 3:19 am–the insomniac’s hour. (I know from experience.)
I think it would be useful to sort out the various moneyed interests here–whenever development is involved there is always money, usually astro-turfing, etc.
Its seems clear that some of the proponents of this land use change are fueled by developers who would compete with Con Agra. On the other hand if the land is rezoned its more valuable to the current owners. A piece on how all this fits together would be nice–after you get some sleep.
The times are off by an hour. And not an insomniac (thankfully) – just busy. I was covering the council until 1 am and then had to get up and have the articles ready and be out of the house before 8 am, so that left me sleep deprived.
I have to say I am with Joe Krovoza and his take on this project. By agreeing to process the application, to some degree I think the city lost some leverage in being able to get everything they want from the developer.
However, I do agree with Sue Greenwald and Dan Wolk that the game is not over yet by a long shot. It is incumbent on the CC to hold fast for the things they do want, the parameters that Dan Wolk talked about: fiscal neutrality, Universal Design, sustainability, walkability, access issue resolution.
But I would also echo Sue Greenwald’s observation that BEFORE changing the zoning of this site, to resolve the issue of where economic development is going to go in this town – have an honest, open and above board conversation about it.
If you want economic development on I-80 then say so, and explore the feasibility of such an option – BEFORE CHANGING THE ZONING AT THE CANNERY. Otherwise you give up all leverage with respect to ConAgra, and the city will not get what it wants, and this will be yet another project that is developer driven…
And economic development in Davis could be dead in the water…
Again, I emphasized at the meeting that high-tech at that site was desirable but would have to be done in such a way that enhances the surrounding neighborhoods — protection of surrounding neighborhoods is of paramount importance, and a moderate-sized, carefully designed high-tech campus component would be a boon to the neighborhood, just like living near the University campus makes central and core Davis houses desirable. A well-designed high-tech campus would and would have some of the benefits of being near the University and none of the noise.
The restricted uses described in the above comment render the site un-viable for a business park, according to the Business Park Land Strategy Report. The Council member describes “a moderate-sized, carefully designed high-tech campus”. But, according to the report, “If restricted to a narrow range of uses (e.g. research and technology uses only), it was projected to require an excessive, non-viable buildout time (39 years).” Please fill me in on how one can argue that a large business park at this site can be hi-tech, neighborhood-friendly, campus-like, low-noise, low-pollution, low-traffic and, at the same time, offer a viable buildout given the findings of the report. It appears to me that these two factors are incompatible.
The BPLS Report gives the ConAgra site all A’s as a business site. As noted, it concluded “the site is viable as a business park provided a broad range of uses is allowed,” but does not identify what those uses include (at least not that I could find). I don’t think that a high-tech campus is the only option; office/light industrial and even some forms of commercial business could locate there. The council dictates the zoning.
However, as I understand it the council 3-2 vote authorizes the applicant to go forward and the staff to process the application. The broad outlines of the project are well-known and the applicant will not change the zoning request and housing allocations unless it is clear Dan Wolk is going to insist on it. They have no incentive now to back off from their proposed housing development.
Dan and Rochelle have mentioned the need for housing — Dan has commented on the lack of housing for younger families, and Rochelle previously described the benefit to the school district. If your goal is to maximize housing availability for young adults, here are a couple of points to consider.
— The segment of the Davis housing market most affected by the current lack of affordable housing is young adults, [i]not just families[/i], who are paying a premium to rent in this tight market. Young families are buying in Woodland, Dixon, and West Sacramento, and it will be several years at least before the overstock of housing in those markets clears out. [i]Davis needs more rental housing[/i], first and foremost.
— Young families can presently bring their children into the Davis school district via interdistrict transfer. They have little incentive to buy here.
— You can’t tell the builder what style of housing to build or who to sell it to. The only leverage you have over the outcome is in the density you mandate. If you want housing units for young people and young families, mandate ONLY the highest-densities (apartments, duplexes, quads). Do not allow any housing units in larger sizes. Unless you are aware of a large number of young couples making in excess of $100K a year, you aren’t going to achieve your stated goals at the current proposed densities. Davis will end up with another subdivision with houses at above-market prices, the bare minimum number of affordable units, and no improvement in the rental vacancy rate.
— If you mandate higher density, you can squeeze in the same number of housing units into a smaller area. That would allow you to increase the percentage of space (50%?) in business uses. You need to clarify which business uses are acceptable.
Zoning decisions for the ConAgra site should be made by the council, based on what is best for the city in the long run, not on what the landowner necessarily prefers. They own the site outright, and will make a good profit regardless of how they develop it. Or, more accurately, how they sell off the land to developers once it is rezoned.
It is possible that putting these restrictions on the site will cause the builder to back off and abandon the project in its current form. No harm, no foul. They can wait. There is no hurry about rezoning or developing this site.
Caroline, this is an inaccurate interpretation.
The business park feasibility study said that the build-out for the [b]full site[/b], if restricted to only research and technology would be 39 years, based on historic absorption rates. First off, absorption rates have been much faster since the study was released. Secondly, I was proposing half the site, for which full build-out as entirely research and development would be under 20 years, according to even the slower historic absorption rates. Finally, no one suggested ONLY high-tech R&D. The existing zoning includes other neighborhood enhancing uses such as some offices, non-profits, and some retail uses such as restaurants and cafes that would serve the businesses, so the build-out rate should be much faster than 20 years — perhaps 10 years.
I should add that the current proposal would probably also have a very long build-out rate, since we already have so many houses approved that we cannot postpone because we did not include phasing requirements in their development agreements.
@ Don Shor: “– the Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC), in supporting the move to begin processing the application, indicates that the Business Park Viability Study “does show that a business park is viable”.
This is a very misleading post (which I’m sure was unintentional) but a good illustration of why the community is having a hard time engaging in an honest dialog about the issue.
On the surface, when taken out of context, the quote appears to support Sue’s argument. What was [u]actually[/u] said by the BEDC is that (1) an unrestricted business park with a wide range of uses is, in their determination, viable, and (2) a business park restricted to high tech uses is non-viable.
Here’s the entire quote (with emphasis added) from pages 06 -3 to 06-4 …
“After discussion and public comment the BEDC recommended the following action (4 to 1 vote in favor, two members absent):”
“Given a [u][b]mixed use concept for the Cannery Park site[/u][/b] aligns with BEDC business attraction and community enhancement goals and merits further consideration, [b][u]the BEDC recommends the Planning Commission and City Council continue processing the application.[/b][/u] BEDC also requests continued involvement in further project reviews throughout the application process.”
“This recommendation was based on the following conclusions:
1) The project merits further consideration,
2) It is understood that the project is still in process,
3) It is aligned with business attraction; the viability study does show that a business park is viable,
4) Housing for workers near jobs and neighborhood shopping reflecting “green” development policies align with community enhancement goals”
“The BEDC wished to stay involved in the process and EIR as the project progresses. The Commission also took unanimous action confirming that the Cannery Park Business Park Viability Study was conducted with a sound methodology and was sufficient to inform the commission for the purposes of decision making. [b][u]It also acknowledged a successful business park [i]requires[/i] a wide variety of permitted uses.[/b][/u] Complete minutes of the BEDC meeting are attached to this report.”
To Don Shor: Nicely said!
“What was actually said by the BEDC is that (1) an unrestricted business park with a wide range of uses is, in their determination, viable, and (2) a business park restricted to high tech uses is non-viable.”
Correct. This is not, however, a dichotomy. I assume that it is possible that
— a business park restricted to various uses, including but not limited to high tech, could be viable.
— property apportioned between housing and business could have a viable business component.
ConAgra wants to build it 80/20 housing to business. Sue proposed 50/50. I haven’t seen any evidence that would be less (or more) successful than what ConAgra wants. The question is what is best for the city.
“The question is what is best for the city.”
Since when has that been the driving force for any decision?
Several comments have touched upon what I consider to be another major flaw of the existing ConAgra proposal.
Rochelle and Dan have both pointed to a need for more housing. What is in short supply is not housing in general, but rather a specific form of housing, namely low income or starter housing. This is not the focus of the proposal at least as it was presented in October. At the October public meeting I had an exchange with the ConAgra representative who was unable to specifically address my questions about the likely projected costs of the majority of the proposed single family homes. When I quoted the asking prices for a number of comparably sized homes in Davis as being around $400,000 to $.600,000, he stated that that seemed about right. Even allowing that this was an off the cuff response to a question that had clearly not been anticipated and planned for, if it is even close, it does not represent what most would consider low cost housing. I do not see this proposal as meeting the need for low cost housing and do not feel that Davis needs what is essentially another automobile dependent suburban development with a low walkability index and poor access. I truly feel that while the council majority has taken the right path on fiscal responsibility, the majority is making a serious misstep in further pursuing this project.
To medwoman: Couldn’t agree w you more!
Does anyone else regret voting Rochelle Swanson into office?
Look at the budget vote.