Following the series of deals cut by ConAgra on Cannery, it seems likely that the council will approve the project at this point. That, of course, does not quite give the project a green light because one of the biggest remaining questions is whether the deals struck by the food giant will be sufficient to diminish or eliminate the possibility of a group putting it on the ballot.
There has been for some time a belief that the neighboring Covell Village developers have been either passively or actively attempting to stop the development at Cannery.
In today’s Enterprise, Dan Carson writes, “One aspect has received little mention. I refer to the disingenuous campaign by the owners of the Covell Village property to manipulate Davis public opinion to try to derail The Cannery project next door.”
He argues, “They apparently hope its defeat will open the door to the rebirth of their oversized and poorly conceived housing tract that was soundly defeated by the voters eight years ago.”
While the Covell Village representative told the local paper back in August that they have little interest in bringing back a project – something that they have been saying privately and behind the scenes as well, Mr. Carson notes, “In a little-publicized letter to city officials last April, though, their lawyer asserted that ‘the development of the Covell site is virtually inevitable; the issue is when, not if.’ “
But that when, not if, may be several decades from now, according to sources that spoke to the Vanguard.
Mr. Carson writes, “The 59 percent of the Davis voters who rejected the enormous Covell Village and its 1,864 housing units in November 2005 might disagree. At the time, many critics argued that reuse of the site of the old Hunt-Wesson canning plant next door – within the city’s boundaries – was a much better plan.”
“It took a few years, but ConAgra, the cannery site owners, and their development partner came up with a remarkable plan with 547 housing units embracing a good mix of innovative housing types, extensive bicycle paths and parks, and an urban farm showcasing the “farm-to-fork” movement,” he continues.
“They soon faced various demands from the Covell Village owners to link planning of The Cannery to future development of their land. For example, the urban farm was to be downsized and shoved to a back corner,” he writes. “Play ball with us, they promised, and our shareholders will let you run a bike path southward from the project through the Cranbrook Apartments to provide a safe path for Cannery kids to get to school and resolve a critical bicycle connectivity problem.
“When their demands were refused, they began hiring lawyers and waging a campaign to sandbag The Cannery that is well-documented in city records.”
He specifically writes, “First, they announced they would object to an easement for the bikeway through Cranbrook, making the bicycle safety of schoolchildren a bargaining chip for their agenda. Then, in August, Covell Village lawyers suddenly insisted that The Cannery pay for $9 million-plus in bicycle infrastructure and roads next to and through their agricultural fields. This calculated sneak attack came 14 months after the scope of Cannery bike path studies was determined and four months after the deadline for commenting on The Cannery’s environmental impact report.”
Earlier this week, Lydia Delis-Schlosser, a spokesperson for North Davis Land Development, wrote in response to a column by Eileen Samitz from Sunday, that similar assertions to the ones presented by Mr. Carson were “misleading” about her “work and the intentions of the owners of the adjacent land that had been envisioned for Covell Village.”
Ms. Samitz in her column wrote, “Covell Village developers have been making such aggressive attempts to derail The Cannery project.”
Ms. Delis-Schlosser would respond, “During the years I have worked with the partners who proposed the Covell Village project, they never did anything to trample The Cannery.”
She did add, “We have, however, been critical of the lack of overall planning for the area and the project’s inadequate bike and pedestrian connections. The present design lacks sufficient off-street bike paths and properly located separated grade crossings, giving rise to concerns about bike and pedestrian commuter safety.”
“From our design experience we presented a bike and pedestrian infrastructure concept that we believed would provide solutions for the residents of The Cannery, the surrounding community and the city. We proposed ideas that would make The Cannery a better project,” Ms. Delis-Schlosser continued.
Ms. Delis-Schlosser also responded to other allegations arguing, “We have never demanded a monetary amount for anything. That assertion is a fabrication.”
Eileen Samitz wrote, “Early on in the planning process, The Cannery asked for an easement to allow a bike path along the edge of the Cranbrook Court apartments, owned by one of the Covell Village developers, but he refused.”
Ms. Delis-Schlosser would respond, “The owners of Cranbrook were always willing to negotiate the easement. ConAgra did not want to coordinate an agreement and never formally or informally asked us to meet to explore possible opportunities.”
“When ConAgra officials first proposed The Cannery we met with them to offer our assistance in improving their connectivity problems – just as we had with Lewis Homes,” she added. She noted that ConAgra declined their overture, and stated in writing that “they had allowed for effective circulation and connectivity and were able to stand alone as a new neighborhood.”
“We have been willing to discuss possible solutions all along,” she continued. “This past Oct. 22, we met at the Cranbrook site with City Council members, city staff and the engineer from ConAgra and walked along the property to examine the feasibility of a bike connection through that area. Participants there that day noted that existing buildings and mature trees challenged the ability to meet minimum width requirements. The bike path would have to pass not only over the Cranbrook property but also through the Pine Crest Apartments land, owned by another independent party, in order to reach the H Street tunnel. As far as we know, neither ConAgra nor the City has approached or negotiated with Pine Crest owners.”
She would write, “There was further concern because such a route would require young children riding to school to pass through a very long corridor in an isolated area hemmed in with chain link fencing on both sides and no escape routes until reaching the tunnel. That route, alongside the railroad tracks, behind the apartments, and past the storage side of Davis Rent All Center, would be dangerously secluded from nearby streets.”
In today’s column Dan Carson notes, “Even if the project could shoulder these costs, fulfilling their wish list would ensnare the project in further environmental reviews and delays and trigger a Measure J vote of the public.”
“Local bicycle enthusiasts took the bait – hook, line and sinker,” he alleges. “They started circulating petitions demanding the bicycle route through Cranbrook that The Cannery team wanted in the first place, but added a demand right out of the Covell Village playbook for a second bike undercrossing of Covell between J and L streets.”
“In response, ConAgra and its partner have offered to pay for more than $13 million to build that second undercrossing; additional or improved bike paths along the north and south sides of Covell, Pole Line Road, Birch Lane and J Street; upgrades to the bicycle tunnel under the railroad tracks at H Street; and other public projects,” he continues. “The plans allow the City Council to choose to construct that bike path southward through Cranbrook at The Cannery’s expense; otherwise, children would take an undercrossing of Covell at the southwest corner of the project and then ramp up to an existing east-west bicycle pathway on the south side of Covell.”
Mr. Carson argues, “Based on these and other generous offers by The Cannery, the City Council should approve the project now while ensuring that a safe bike route for kids is built. Going southward through Cranbrook makes the most sense – if the Covell Village property owners stop their blockade of this route.”
He adds, “Meanwhile, it is time for the Covell Village developers to cease their attempts to undermine The Cannery. They can start by cooperating with efforts to provide safe bicycle routes for kids to school.”
“In the past, some Covell Village property owners have made significant and generous contributions to various Davis civic causes that deserve applause,” he writes. “However, their continuing campaign against The Cannery is a big mistake that likely will prove self-defeating and divisive to the Davis community.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I don’t give a hoot about Covell Village. I moved away from Davis for many, many reasons. But I love Davis. We visit family and friends there often. I stay overnight in Davis and spend my retirement dollars there. A lot of my hard earned retirement dollars.
One of the reasons I left: I wanted to live in a community with more open space. I didn’t want to get in my car to drive to a place with wide open spaces. I wanted nature all around me, in my immediate neighborhood. I found that place.
This is what dismays me & what sums up both of the aforementioned land development projects for the little village where I raised my kids, & spent almost 20 years:
This statement, by a poster, referring to pets:
“They are expendable.”
Basically the poster said human life rules, pets and other creatures of nature are “expendable”.
That belief is driving all of the current development in Davis. The trees, the coyotes, the birds, your organic garden: it is all “expendable”.
JD
I do believe that the word “expendable” does sum up nicely a difference in world view between those whose focus is on short term economic gain and those who take a longer view and are concerned about the well being of all once the short term economic gain philosophy has destroyed the ability of people who would prefer a more modest, natural lifestyle to care for themselves.
One thing that seems to get lost in the promotion of “constructive destruction” is that for those whose lifestyle is forever being taken away, and who do not have the economic means to just pick up and move, there is nothing “constructive” about the destruction of their lives.
It seemed the article was heading toward a ballot vote, but didn’t quite get there! David, do you think CV partners are pushing for that?
On the one hand, the Cannery blight will be good to remove….on the other I still wonder why we can’t have our business park there….I know I know all the reasons, owner, freeway, etc. etc.
I look at some of the newer developments in town and they really look sterile…..
and I am seriously worried about the exit planning as medwoman has so nicely articulated…..in fact it has made me think about OUR exit planning in South Davis (SODA) neighborhood…which fortunately is not blocked in as the Cannery is…..
SODA, Why do you call it “blight”?
SODA: I’m trying to find out the answer to the question. I guess we’ll see in the next few weeks if there is a real push for a ballot vote. ConAgra’s strategy seemed to be to give on every issue in hopes that it would mean no ballot, we’ll see if that works.
[quote]He argues, “They apparently hope its defeat will open the door to the rebirth of their oversized and poorly conceived housing tract that was soundly defeated by the voters eight years ago.”[/quote]
I’m seeing some holes in his conspiracy theory. If a smaller project, that occurs within city boundaries, in which the developers have been responsive to people concerns, fails to pass, why would an oversized and poorly planned one outside of city limits have a glimmer of a chance.
Also, in my opinion, while the Cannery site remains available (a site within city limits), a development outside city limits has very little chance of gaining public approval. I don’t see Covell Village being viable option UNTIL after the Cannery is developed.
Since my responses to Lydia’s article were posted later that evening since I am at work during the day so my postings happen when I am home, I will post again for folks who may not have seen them. I will catch up after work this evening if there is anything needing further clarification. Sorry but, I don;t have the time right now to separate Lydia’s quote from min with the usual “quote balloons” so I hope this is all clear but if not please check the original posting after Lydia’s article. I will break this up into a fe posting since it is long.
From Lydia’s article: The article falsely stated:
“Covell Village developers have been making such aggressive attempts to derail The Cannery project.”
TRUTH:
During the years I have worked with the partners who proposed the Covell Village project, they never did anything to trample The Cannery. We have, however, been critical of the lack of overall planning for the area and the project’s inadequate bike and pedestrian connections. The present design lacks sufficient off-street bike paths and properly located separated grade crossings, giving rise to concerns about bike and pedestrian commuter safety.
From our design experience we presented a bike and pedestrian infrastructure concept that we believed would provide solutions for the residents of The Cannery, the surrounding community and the city. We proposed ideas that would make The Cannery a better project.
My response: The problem here Lydia is that:
1) The Covell Village developers are clearly trying to get a significant amount of bike and vehicular infrastructure and an emergency vehicle road but on their land for free, not for altruistic reasons, but to increase the monetary value of their land to develop it.
2) It would seem to be the job of the City to do planning of connectivity and circulation, etc. for our community not yourself and the Covell Village developers. It would also seem that the City would be more objective as compared to the Covell Village developers are clearly have an agenda to lay the groundwork for developing Covell Village and want the Cannery to pay for that infrastructure. If the Covell Village developers are willing to pay the $9 million dollars for all of these roads through Covell Village, please let us know.
3) It seems pretty clear that the Covell Village developers also seem to think that it is they who should be doing the city planning, rather than the City staff and the citizens of Davis. This was evident during the Measure X issue as well.
[quote]”They soon faced various demands from the Covell Village owners to link planning of The Cannery to future development of their land. For example, the urban farm was to be downsized and shoved to a back corner,” he writes.
Besides the urban farm being downsized and moved, what demands did the Covell Village owners place on the The Cannery? (How exactly does moving and downsizing the farm promote future development of Covell SIte?).
[quote]”When their demands were refused, they began hiring lawyers and waging a campaign to sandbag The Cannery that is well-documented in city records.”[/quote]
And what demands were refused?
[quote]Then, in August, Covell Village lawyers suddenly insisted that The Cannery pay for $9 million-plus in bicycle infrastructure and roads next to and through their agricultural fields. [/quote]
What was the plan before August? Free access?
[quote]”Local bicycle enthusiasts took the bait – hook, line and sinker,” he alleges. “They started circulating petitions demanding the bicycle route through Cranbrook that The Cannery team wanted in the first place, but added a demand right out of the Covell Village playbook for a second bike undercrossing of Covell between J and L streets.”[/quote]
Out of all the nonsensical claims this seems the most ludicrous to me.
From Lydia’s article: The article falsely stated:
“They recently demanded that The Cannery pay $9 million for unnecessary bike paths and roads through their Covell Village agricultural land.
TRUTH:
We have never demanded a monetary amount for anything. That assertion is a fabrication.
My response: Let me re-phrase this Lydia:
The Covell Village developers want $9 million worth of Covell Village infrastructure constructed on their 386 acres of ag land, but the Covell Village developers want the Cannery to pay for it. (Note: the map of all of these bike and vehicular roads was published in the Enterprise a few months ago when Lydia was advocating for it representing the Covell Village developers.)
From Lydia’s article: The article falsely stated:
“Early on in the planning process, The Cannery asked for an easement to allow a bike path along the edge of the Cranbrook Court apartments, owned by one of the Covell Village developers, but he refused.”
TRUTH:
The owners of Cranbrook were always willing to negotiate the easement. ConAgra did not want to coordinate an agreement and never formally or informally asked us to meet to explore possible opportunities.
When ConAgra officials first proposed The Cannery we met with them to offer our assistance in improving their connectivity problems – just as we had with Lewis Homes. ConAgra declined our overture, and stated in writing that “they had allowed
My response: It is astonishing that you make this claim. There have been meetings with the Covell Village developers and bike advocates (including Bike Advisory Commission members) asking for an easement on the Cranbrook Court Apts. site owned by one of the Covell developers. WHY IS THE COVELL VILLAGE DEVELOPER NOT ALLOWING THE EASEMENT ON THE CRANBROOK COURT APTS. SITE?
From Lydia’s article: The article also falsely stated:
“Physical challenges and the persistent easement denial by the Covell Village developers remain significant problems.”
TRUTH:
We have been willing to discuss possible solutions all along.
This past Oct. 22, we met at the Cranbrook site with City Council members, city staff and the engineer from ConAgra and walked along the property to examine the feasibility of a bike connection through that area. Participants there that day noted that existing buildings and mature trees challenged the ability to meet minimum width requirements. The bike path would have to pass not only over the Cranbrook property but also through the Pine Crest Apartments land, owned by another independent party, in order to reach the H Street tunnel. As far as we know, neither ConAgra nor the City has approached or negotiated with Pine Crest owners.
There was further concern because such a route would require young children riding to school to pass through a very long corridor in an isolated area hemmed in with chain link fencing on both sides and no escape routes until reaching the tunnel. That route, alongside the railroad tracks, behind the apartments, and past the storage side of Davis Rent All Center, would be dangerously secluded from nearby streets.
My response: Ok. So the City and the Cannery developers were finally allowed to come onto the Cranbrook Court Apts. land to do measurements recently (which until now the Covell Village developer owner had denied). But, now you are bringing up all these reasons why you think it is not a good bike route? So are you opposing the Bike Advisory Commissions recommendation on this bike route? Pine Crest Apts. is irrelevant if your employers continue to deny the easement on Cranbrook Court Apts. since easements are needed on both apartment complexes.
From Lydia’s article: The article also falsely stated:
“…a bike tunnel to vacant agricultural land in the county is an obvious ‘camel’s nose under the tent’ regarding the development of the Covell Village site.”
TRUTH:
To the contrary, if The Cannery is approved and constructed without adequate bicycle transit infrastructure, its future residents, and existing residents in the impaced areas, including Wildhorse, would recognize and demand resolution of the existing deficiencies that endanger cyclists and pedestrians along Covell Boulevard between Pole Line Road and F Street and north on Pole line to Moore. If anything, that demand for infrastructure would encourage development of the adjoining Covell site with incorporation of such infrastructure as a condition of its approval. Inclusion of bike and pedestrian improvements now would, if anything, diminish public pressure for development of the adjoining land.
My response: This is another astonishing statement of yours. You imply that the Covell Village developers really aren’t trying to resurrect the development of the Covell Village site. But, the Covell Village developers have a letter in the public record from April 9, 2012 regarding their recommendations for the EIR scoping, and this is one revealing point they submitted reads:
“Specific suggestions for additions to the EIR scope:
1) Eventually the neighboring property will be developed. We suggest that consideration should be given to the overall interrelated impacts of the two pieces of property. For example, assuming a build-out of the neighboring property at 1,200 units would enable adequate evaluation of the potential impacts to the area. Such a comprehensive evaluation would provide a basis by which the City could assess fair-share financial obligations to the Cannery now and to the neighboring site when it develops.”
Just to clarify, “the neighboring property” referred to by the Covell Village developers is the Covell Village site. So please, the intention of the Covell Village developers trying to jockey for a position to try to resurrect Covell Village is very clear. This is not about the altruism of the Covell Village developers.
Finally, your last section I am not going to address because I already explained the late request issue was that the BAC did not request the second bike crossing until after a year after the EIR scoping period.
In short, this is really about the political agenda that you have been hired to carry out by the Covell Village developers. All of it is in the best interest of the Covell Village developers, not our community. If you want to do something helpful, ask the Covell Village developer who owns Cranbrook Court Apartments to step up and allow the easement on this site. If he really wants to help, he would donate the easement to the community.
Sorry I messed up the quotes on my previous post:
[quote]”They soon faced various demands from the Covell Village owners to link planning of The Cannery to future development of their land. For example, the urban farm was to be downsized and shoved to a back corner,” he writes. [/quote]
Besides the urban farm being downsized and moved, what demands did the Covell Village owners place on the The Cannery? (How exactly does moving and downsizing the farm promote future development of Covell SIte?).
[quote]”When their demands were refused, they began hiring lawyers and waging a campaign to sandbag The Cannery that is well-documented in city records.”[/quote]
And what demands were refused?
Eileen Samitz
[quote]vehicular infrastructure and an emergency vehicle road but on their land for free, not for altruistic reasons,[/quote]
The implication may not have been there, but I want to make it explicitly clear that my concerns about the safety of the community in the event of need for evacuation have nothing to do with the establishment of an emergency vehicle road on Covell Village owners land for free or not. This is a completely separate issue.
I have no allegiance to any of the groups having a financial interest here.
If anyone doubts this, I would invite you to have a conversation with either Joe Krovoza or Rochelle Swanson with whom I walked the Olive drive neighbor hood prior to the ill advised construction of the railroad fence on only the Olive Drive side of the tracks. I believe that the exact words that I used at the time were “death trap”
considering that there is only one vehicular route in one direction out of this community, and now the fence was going to serve as an impediment to people attempting to flee on foot to the north.
Now I see a similar construction being developed for 1,500 people and am hearing comments about “pretending to be concerned” and ” last minute” concerns. If you do not believe my sincerity or independence ,please ask council members whether or not I have addressed this issue over a number of years. At least three of them know me personally and will remember my concerns preceding the Frerichs, Lee election.
eileen and daniel (if you are reading): i have no problem with you calling out covell and lydia and company. however, i think the attacks against the bicycling community could have been re-directed. i understand you have differences in opinion, but to me those are sincere differences rather than because they have some love for covell.
What I would like to know is if there is any truth to the rumor that the owners of the Covell Village property are going to fund Mike Harrington to run a petition drive against the Cannery project? I’ve heard it in a couple of different settings, never from Harrington and never from the Covell property owners. Still a Sherman statement on the topic would be helpful.
B. Nice, the Covell Village property owners demands are summarized in a 6/26/11 letter from Bill Streng that is in the public record. Streng indicated the Covell Village property owners wanted The Cannery plans changed to include 1200 to 2400 one-story residences; “joint planning” to occur with their Covell Village property (despite its rejection in a 2005 Measure J vote); access to J Street “for additional cars which might come from our site;” the move of the urban farm to the north end of the property, which would mean it would have to be downsized and made invisible to most visitors; and notification of any home purchaser “that would inform their buyers that the Covell property is a ‘yellow site’ identified for possible future residential and commercial development.”
Do all of this, Streng said, and his group “will provide right of way for bikes and pedestrians through the rear of the Cranbrook apartments our shareholders own south of Covell.” After The Cannery developers rejected these proposals, Streng again insisted in a 4/9/12 letter in the public record that “eventually the neighboring property (Covell Village land) will be developed.” Because The Cannery had not agreed to their terms, Streng declared, “Access to the existing bike tunnel under the tracks, south of Covell Blvd. along the Cranbrook Court property, can be an option only if the City is willing to use eminent domain in order to acquire the easement.”
So, while Covell Village spokespersons and lawyers preach the need for improved bicycle connectivity, the record shows they are indeedf using kids’ bicycle safety as a bargaining chip.
Dan Carson
[quote]”Access to the existing bike tunnel under the tracks, south of Covell Blvd. along the Cranbrook Court property, can be an option only if the City is willing to use eminent domain in order to acquire the easement.”
So, while Covell Village spokespersons and lawyers preach the need for improved bicycle connectivity, the record shows they are indeedf using kids’ bicycle safety as a bargaining chip.[/quote]
While I believe that there are some in the community who might indeed be willing to use connectivity and safety as “bargaining chips” or for what we in the medical community would call “secondary gain”, that does not mean that there are not very real connectivity, safety, and wellness concerns held by other members of the community who do not stand to gain personally.
* Make that “1200 to 2400 square foot one-story residences in my prior comment.
[quote]So, while Covell Village spokespersons and lawyers preach the need for improved bicycle connectivity, the record shows they are indeedf using kids’ bicycle safety as a bargaining chip.[/quote]
Dan thanks for addressing my question, but I’m still confused about claims that Covell Village is trying to kill the Cannery project. If I understand your assertions correctly Covell Village developers would have had an easier time resurrecting their project if the Cannery met their demands and was developed. What I don’t understand is how killing the Cannery Project helps them with their ultimate goal.
Oh mercy, mercy me
Ah things ain’t what they used to be
What about this overcrowded land
How much more abuse from man can she stand?
Marvin Gaye – Mercy Mercy Me Lyrics
[quote]Because The Cannery had not agreed to their terms, Streng declared, “Access to the existing bike tunnel under the tracks, south of Covell Blvd. along the Cranbrook Court property, can be an option only if the City is willing to use eminent domain in order to acquire the easement.” [/quote]
This seems a move done out of spite. Is that the claim? That Covell Village is trying to kill the Cannery Project because they are mad that their demands weren’t met?
JimmysDaughter
11/15/13 – 08:26 AM
…
SODA, Why do you call it “blight”?
SODA: JD: you don’t agree that cement with weeds coming up through the cracks and a chain link fence with padlocks for years and years isn’t blight? Something other than that (even the old cannery building) would be better; in fact it had some charm 🙂
B. Nice,
I completely agree that Covell Village owners’ attempts to derail The Cannery make no logical sense. The urban farm would clearly enhance property values in the area, including theirs — yet the record documents that have nonetheless tried to torpedo it. It is just as self-destructive as their continued efforts to block the bike route through the Cranbrook apartments that they once proposed themselves. The analysis of bike routes that was done as part of the Cannery EIR process indicates that the bike path would be a plus for Cranbrook apartment residents. Yet the Covell Village ownership continues to try to block it. Hopefully they will realize their folly.
[quote] i have no problem with you calling out covell and lydia and company. however, i think the attacks against the bicycling community could have been re-directed. [/quote]
I agree, for reasons stated by Medwomen in this quote:
[quote]that does not mean that there are not very real connectivity, safety, and wellness concerns held by other members of the community who do not stand to gain personally.[/quote]
Why some have decided to, from what I can tell, unjustly question the motives of the biking community is a mystery and seem such an off base allegation it discredits their other claims.
[quote]I completely agree that Covell Village owners’ attempts to derail The Cannery make no logical sense.[/quote]
I guess this is why I’m having a hard time buying this “Hidden Agenda” idea. Given the information I’ve seen it makes no logical sense.
Put it to a vote of the citizens. If we voted on Target we certainly deserve a vote on this much larger project. What is the council afraid of, the people voting their opinion?
I cannot speak for Davis Bicycles, an advocacy group of which I am not a member, but I can give some background about the Bicycle Advisory Commission’s consideration of this project. Note that I am not speaking for the Commission; I am giving my own perspective.
From the beginning of our involvement, our primary concerns were safety and access. We asked the developers from the earliest presentation of the “new” Cannery project for safe routes to the south and the west, with preference for a west crossing at the northwest corner of the development.
After going back and forth for a long time, hearing the terms “impractical” and “impossible” over and over, a joint meeting with the Safety and Parking Advisory Commission was held in April 2013, and the following resolution was passed:
[quote]In order to achieve the City objective related to connectivity to
adjacent neighborhoods the following are necessary if this project is to go forward. Without them the project should not be approved:
The applicant must mitigate the impact of increased bike and pedestrian traffic through the H Street tunnel by upgrading the tunnel to increase its width, improve sight lines on the western side of the tunnel, remove the 90 degree turn required to enter and exit the tunnel from the west end, and improve its lighting.
Motion passed 7–4
.
The applicant must work with the City to develop a plan for a grade separated crossing on the east side of the project — preferably a tunnel under Covell similar to the tunnel under Covell to the east of Wildhorse (just east of Monarch drive). A potential location for this tunnel (assuming feasibility with utilities) would be at Covell and L Streets.
Motion passed 9–2
If the above actions are taken, the project meets the objective of connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and City core.
Motion passed 10-1[/quote]
The developers came back to the BAC in October with their “revised” option for approval, which was not accepted. The BAC reiterated support of the April motion unanimously.
The BAC has been considering this project for a long time, and jumped on no bandwagons. Our focus has always been on safety and connectivity.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Why some have decided to, from what I can tell, unjustly question the motives of the biking community is a mystery and seem such an off base allegation it discredits their other claims.”[/i]
I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, and have talked directly with Eileen Samitz about it. Further, in an interchange here in the Vanguard with Becky I said,
[quote]Regarding that second question if you think [the bicycle community] is “carrying the water for Covell Village” the evidence to the contrary is plain to hear half way through the recording of the October 7, 2013 Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting. [Robb Davis] very clearly says, “[u]We need to stare these guys down and take the land if we need it…” The “these guys” he is referring to are the owners of Cranbrook Apartments[/u]. He calls their actions reprehensible. You may want to transcribe this and send it out to anyone who claims (in full throat or in whispers) that [the bicycle community] is supporting “these guys” especially since the owners of Cranbrook Apartments and Covell Village are essentially the same. [/quote]
“Put it to a vote of the citizens”
are you going to put up your time and money to make that happen?
Mr.Toad wrote:
> What I would like to know is if there is any truth
> to the rumor that the owners of the Covell Village
> property are going to fund Mike Harrington to run a
> petition drive against the Cannery project?
Has anyone been asked to sign a petition to get this on the ballot?
On the topic of petitions I was just asked to sign a petition by a woman in front of the South Davis Safeway (who said she was a Davis Firefighter) to try and stop the joint management with the UCD Fire Department (other guys wearing Davis FD sweatehirts were at the other door).
I asked her a few questions and she could not tell me any reason why I should sign…
[i]Oh mercy, mercy me
Ah things ain’t what they used to be
What about this overcrowded land
How much more abuse from man can she stand?[/i]
A song about our hyper-dense little city.
“What I would like to know is if there is any truth to the rumor that the owners of the Covell Village property are going to fund Mike Harrington to run a petition drive against the Cannery project? I’ve heard it in a couple of different settings, never from Harrington and never from the Covell property owners. Still a Sherman statement on the topic would be helpful.”
Again, why would Covell Village want to spend money to kill this project?