In it, there is a discussion of the Housing Element Steering Committee’s (HESC) housing plan. From the onset there were 15 members, 3 appointed by each of the councilmembers. The assumption was that with a 3-2 split on council between those aligned with local developers and those favoring less growth, that there would be a 9-6 pro-growth majority.
However, according to Vice Chair Mark Siegler, a Sue Greenwald appointee, that’s not what happened.
According to the article:
“It came as a surprise when a committee of 15 residents, appointed by council members to help shape the future of Davis, worked together for a year and reached agreement on an innovative housing plan.
It proposes modest growth within the city’s current borders. Infill projects deemed beneficial to the city would get priority.”
Mark Siegler is quoted saying:
“It was sort of an amazing outcome… I was ready to go in there and just do battle to the death.”
Instead now the fear is that the plan that was meticulously worked on over the course many months would be undermined by the city council with very different agendas and ideas than the committee members.
“Over the course of several months, we came to much more of a middle ground… I wouldn’t be surprised if members of the City Council are not happy with the outcome based on who they appointed… I hope they don’t just dismiss this thing out of hand.”
HESC Chairman Kevin Wolf said:
“We have the political consensus to force the City Council in a new direction.”
However, if the meeting last week is any indication, this consensus is about to break down into the usual fighting.
For example, Councilmember Stephen Souza and Don Saylor want to push for developing the Nishi property which was ranked No.17 by the steering committee. Mayor Ruth Asmundson complained that some of the properties like the PG&E site and the school district headquarters are not feasible since no one determined if the current occupants would be willing to move or develop their properties.
On the other side of fence, Councilmember Lamar Heystek worried that the list would lead to an artificial means by which to induce growth. Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued vehemently last week the city does not need to grow given the weak market.
However, in my discussion with Lamar Heystek on KDRT Radio last week, he agreed that the city council had considerable room for consensus building. There are clear philosophical differences between the two sides over the rate of growth and the willingness to develop on Measure J sites, however, there is also significant agreement on other areas.
The reason the HESC was able to come to consensus is that they avoided the more contentious “how much issue” and went toward the “where” issue. And in the immediate future, almost everyone agreed that we ought to grow in infill sites near the city’s core and move out.
The council majority of Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson have a choice. They certainly have the votes and the recent election results to push forward with any agenda they see fit to seek. On the other hand, strategically speaking, they may be better off tackling development projects where they have basic agreement on location first.
As the HESC report makes clear, there are more than enough of these infill projects to meet either the low end RHNA numbers for the next five years or even the high end, 1% growth cap numbers without looking to a single peripheral project.
However, there are still a lot of pitfalls along the way.
Covell Village: The return of Covell Village is one thing to look at. The group formerly known as the Covell Partners has repackaged the project splitting the development into three segments. The first segment which would be on the lower third is looking towards senior housing. Senior housing is probably the next huge hot potato in general. There is a divide within the community about the need for senior housing and the type of senior housing. Some have suggested that senior housing internal needs are small and any big project would pull from a more regional and even statewide basis, others suggest that residents in Davis ought to be able to move their senior parents into closer proximity.
The form of senior housing is another question. Some have suggested that ideally smaller condos are better suited for seniors than senior-only segregated communities. The argument here is that many seniors want to downsize, but not live in senior-only communities. Some seniors do not even want to downsize.
Nishe: If one looks to location alone this Measure J project would be ideal. But there is a huge hurdle–that is lack of road access. The only access right now would be the narrow Olive Drive leading to the congested Richard Blvd interchange. The road access is so prohibitive that developers have suggested having only campus access for cars and otherwise only direct access to the rest of the city via bicycle or pedestrian traffic. Sounds good in theory, but recognizing the need for special traffic provisions illustrates the pitfall of the development. One alternative might be to give it to the university and have the university use it to expand it’s on-campus housing base.
Lewis Property: This is the property that divides the progressive community. On the one hand, many believe that Lewis is an ideal place to develop as means to accommodate growth demands while at the same time not paving over farm land. The fact that it’s already paved over and has some of the infrastructure needs plays into that desire. Still, others worry about provisions that Lewis is developed with a mind toward its more controversial eastern neighbor, Covell. While Lewis is considerably smaller than Covell, some of the same concerns that plagued Covell, apply to Lewis. Others such as Councilmember Sue Greenwald have been steadfastly pressing for high tech industry, arguing that we have few high tech zoned sites, that this is the ideal way to bring in new industry, and that the site is not conducive to residential development. The current owners however are pressing hard for a residential development. This is not a Measure J site, and it seems like that the residential side will eventually win this fight much to the chagrin of a number of others.
Wildhorse Horse Ranch: This is another peripheral site that would trigger a Measure J vote. The property came up for consideration early this spring and the meeting was largely an unmitigated disaster as neighbors complained about the project and even council would-be supporters seemed close to pulling the plug on the deal. However, the project has been re-worked. Many of the neighbors are if not supportive of the project, at the very least had their criticism muted. This is likely the next Measure J project Davis will vote on. Probably sometime in 2009. How will it go? It’s only 40 acres. The project is said to be extremely environmentally innovative on the cutting edge. If the neighbors are brought along it could pass. If the neighbors remained as outspoken as they were at the last meeting before Council, it is a different story.
Those projects represent varying levels of political opposition. There are other projects within the city limits that would be slam dunks. I still believe one of the biggest mistakes of Covell Village was the timing. The council put all of their eggs into one basket on development and as a result, when Covell was voted down, there was nothing left in the queue. The result, few new housing permits the last three years of city council. The pro-growth majority, for a two-year stretch, a 4-1 pro-growth majority oversaw the period of the slowest growth in recent Davis history.
The question at this point is whether the council majority has learned a true lesson from Covell Village. The lesson is not that people do not want growth. However the lesson is also not that they did not explain the project or sell it well enough. The lesson is that the council tried to do too much, too quickly, with one project that was easy for people to understand the consequences of and easy for people to oppose. Moreover, it was polarizing. If the council can avoid polarizing future votes and issues, and instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do, they will be successful. If they cannot, their majority will likely be lost.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Other than the small 25 acre project on the SE corner of Wildhorse, I think any residential project built north of Covell has to have a solidly planned and funded public safety solution, especially the 5 minute response time issue for the fire fighters. (Hey, Eileen, you’re giving Lewis Homes a pass on this! Don’t do it.)
Make any new larger project PAY for the public safety solution, up front.
Other than the small 25 acre project on the SE corner of Wildhorse, I think any residential project built north of Covell has to have a solidly planned and funded public safety solution, especially the 5 minute response time issue for the fire fighters. (Hey, Eileen, you’re giving Lewis Homes a pass on this! Don’t do it.)
Make any new larger project PAY for the public safety solution, up front.
Other than the small 25 acre project on the SE corner of Wildhorse, I think any residential project built north of Covell has to have a solidly planned and funded public safety solution, especially the 5 minute response time issue for the fire fighters. (Hey, Eileen, you’re giving Lewis Homes a pass on this! Don’t do it.)
Make any new larger project PAY for the public safety solution, up front.
Other than the small 25 acre project on the SE corner of Wildhorse, I think any residential project built north of Covell has to have a solidly planned and funded public safety solution, especially the 5 minute response time issue for the fire fighters. (Hey, Eileen, you’re giving Lewis Homes a pass on this! Don’t do it.)
Make any new larger project PAY for the public safety solution, up front.
There are some conflicts in your story. You hope that the City Council, “instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do”. Remember the HESC has recommended the Nishi property as a green light site with access to UCD but you state that is not good enough. So you commend the work of the HESC (“broad community consensus”)and ask the CC to follow suit but quickly criticize HESC reccomnedations (UC access) if a project might move forward. Vehicular traffic from Nishi to UCD would also allow cars to travel downtown- but why would someone want to drive downtown from Nishi when they can walk or bike there? Your arguement is that it is not convenient enough for cars but all smart planning goals are to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking. I suggest you go the Borders parking lot and walk on the existing bike path under the RR tracks. Once you cross under the RR tracks that existing bike path that travels from downtown to South Davis is ON the Nishi property.
There are some conflicts in your story. You hope that the City Council, “instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do”. Remember the HESC has recommended the Nishi property as a green light site with access to UCD but you state that is not good enough. So you commend the work of the HESC (“broad community consensus”)and ask the CC to follow suit but quickly criticize HESC reccomnedations (UC access) if a project might move forward. Vehicular traffic from Nishi to UCD would also allow cars to travel downtown- but why would someone want to drive downtown from Nishi when they can walk or bike there? Your arguement is that it is not convenient enough for cars but all smart planning goals are to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking. I suggest you go the Borders parking lot and walk on the existing bike path under the RR tracks. Once you cross under the RR tracks that existing bike path that travels from downtown to South Davis is ON the Nishi property.
There are some conflicts in your story. You hope that the City Council, “instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do”. Remember the HESC has recommended the Nishi property as a green light site with access to UCD but you state that is not good enough. So you commend the work of the HESC (“broad community consensus”)and ask the CC to follow suit but quickly criticize HESC reccomnedations (UC access) if a project might move forward. Vehicular traffic from Nishi to UCD would also allow cars to travel downtown- but why would someone want to drive downtown from Nishi when they can walk or bike there? Your arguement is that it is not convenient enough for cars but all smart planning goals are to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking. I suggest you go the Borders parking lot and walk on the existing bike path under the RR tracks. Once you cross under the RR tracks that existing bike path that travels from downtown to South Davis is ON the Nishi property.
There are some conflicts in your story. You hope that the City Council, “instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do”. Remember the HESC has recommended the Nishi property as a green light site with access to UCD but you state that is not good enough. So you commend the work of the HESC (“broad community consensus”)and ask the CC to follow suit but quickly criticize HESC reccomnedations (UC access) if a project might move forward. Vehicular traffic from Nishi to UCD would also allow cars to travel downtown- but why would someone want to drive downtown from Nishi when they can walk or bike there? Your arguement is that it is not convenient enough for cars but all smart planning goals are to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking. I suggest you go the Borders parking lot and walk on the existing bike path under the RR tracks. Once you cross under the RR tracks that existing bike path that travels from downtown to South Davis is ON the Nishi property.
There are indeed conflicts in my story, because I am conflicted on some issues. Interesting that you tell me to walk by Borders, because I used to do that walk with Mike Harrington every morning. As we got up to Nishi, we were questioning how there would be development there.
As for the rankings, even that is a bit misleading. The HESC did two evaluations of Nishi, one with Olive Access, one without. The one without was No.17, the one with I think was in the yellow at 23 (I’m not looking at the list right now, so forgive me if that’s not accurate).
Just because in general I support the work of the HESC, doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they said, I don’t think my blog today suggested that I did.
My problem with their Nishi evaluation, is the same problem that others have with the PGE site–I don’t think it is realistic to have a development like that without access to Richards. And I think having access to Richards is problematic for the traffic reasons. Hence I think Nishi is a problem and I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.
There are indeed conflicts in my story, because I am conflicted on some issues. Interesting that you tell me to walk by Borders, because I used to do that walk with Mike Harrington every morning. As we got up to Nishi, we were questioning how there would be development there.
As for the rankings, even that is a bit misleading. The HESC did two evaluations of Nishi, one with Olive Access, one without. The one without was No.17, the one with I think was in the yellow at 23 (I’m not looking at the list right now, so forgive me if that’s not accurate).
Just because in general I support the work of the HESC, doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they said, I don’t think my blog today suggested that I did.
My problem with their Nishi evaluation, is the same problem that others have with the PGE site–I don’t think it is realistic to have a development like that without access to Richards. And I think having access to Richards is problematic for the traffic reasons. Hence I think Nishi is a problem and I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.
There are indeed conflicts in my story, because I am conflicted on some issues. Interesting that you tell me to walk by Borders, because I used to do that walk with Mike Harrington every morning. As we got up to Nishi, we were questioning how there would be development there.
As for the rankings, even that is a bit misleading. The HESC did two evaluations of Nishi, one with Olive Access, one without. The one without was No.17, the one with I think was in the yellow at 23 (I’m not looking at the list right now, so forgive me if that’s not accurate).
Just because in general I support the work of the HESC, doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they said, I don’t think my blog today suggested that I did.
My problem with their Nishi evaluation, is the same problem that others have with the PGE site–I don’t think it is realistic to have a development like that without access to Richards. And I think having access to Richards is problematic for the traffic reasons. Hence I think Nishi is a problem and I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.
There are indeed conflicts in my story, because I am conflicted on some issues. Interesting that you tell me to walk by Borders, because I used to do that walk with Mike Harrington every morning. As we got up to Nishi, we were questioning how there would be development there.
As for the rankings, even that is a bit misleading. The HESC did two evaluations of Nishi, one with Olive Access, one without. The one without was No.17, the one with I think was in the yellow at 23 (I’m not looking at the list right now, so forgive me if that’s not accurate).
Just because in general I support the work of the HESC, doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they said, I don’t think my blog today suggested that I did.
My problem with their Nishi evaluation, is the same problem that others have with the PGE site–I don’t think it is realistic to have a development like that without access to Richards. And I think having access to Richards is problematic for the traffic reasons. Hence I think Nishi is a problem and I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.
Check it out:
http//bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
This comment has links to an original article on housing prices and the continued decline in prices predicted in the article by an International Monetary Fund economist Vladimir Klyuev titled What Goes Up Must Come Down? House Price Dynamics In The United States.
If you go to the original article there is an interesting aspect of the analysis that is relevent to Davis real estate markets. The author explains that lack of land availability of land and zoning restrictions have caused the price bubble to be most extreme in the Northeast and the West. He also predicts further price declines nationally with the largest declines in the west.
While availability of land is not the issue in Davis the extremely tight zoning rules enacted over time by no growth advocates rstricting peripheral growth through measure J and other tools of governance have served to more than make up for the availability of land in restricting growth and inflating prices.
While I understand that homeowners acting in their own economic interest would want to restrict supply to prop up the price of their own homes I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values. What I find most irritating is the lack of disclosure about this inherent conflict while at the same time pounding the constant drumbeat about the greedy developers without regard to the benefit that their product can bring by increasing housing stock. The greatest irony is that both sides are acting out of economic self-interest but at least the developers are honest about it.
The IMF article is well worth a read especially for you econ types who can follow the methodology and the math.
Check it out:
http//bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
This comment has links to an original article on housing prices and the continued decline in prices predicted in the article by an International Monetary Fund economist Vladimir Klyuev titled What Goes Up Must Come Down? House Price Dynamics In The United States.
If you go to the original article there is an interesting aspect of the analysis that is relevent to Davis real estate markets. The author explains that lack of land availability of land and zoning restrictions have caused the price bubble to be most extreme in the Northeast and the West. He also predicts further price declines nationally with the largest declines in the west.
While availability of land is not the issue in Davis the extremely tight zoning rules enacted over time by no growth advocates rstricting peripheral growth through measure J and other tools of governance have served to more than make up for the availability of land in restricting growth and inflating prices.
While I understand that homeowners acting in their own economic interest would want to restrict supply to prop up the price of their own homes I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values. What I find most irritating is the lack of disclosure about this inherent conflict while at the same time pounding the constant drumbeat about the greedy developers without regard to the benefit that their product can bring by increasing housing stock. The greatest irony is that both sides are acting out of economic self-interest but at least the developers are honest about it.
The IMF article is well worth a read especially for you econ types who can follow the methodology and the math.
Check it out:
http//bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
This comment has links to an original article on housing prices and the continued decline in prices predicted in the article by an International Monetary Fund economist Vladimir Klyuev titled What Goes Up Must Come Down? House Price Dynamics In The United States.
If you go to the original article there is an interesting aspect of the analysis that is relevent to Davis real estate markets. The author explains that lack of land availability of land and zoning restrictions have caused the price bubble to be most extreme in the Northeast and the West. He also predicts further price declines nationally with the largest declines in the west.
While availability of land is not the issue in Davis the extremely tight zoning rules enacted over time by no growth advocates rstricting peripheral growth through measure J and other tools of governance have served to more than make up for the availability of land in restricting growth and inflating prices.
While I understand that homeowners acting in their own economic interest would want to restrict supply to prop up the price of their own homes I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values. What I find most irritating is the lack of disclosure about this inherent conflict while at the same time pounding the constant drumbeat about the greedy developers without regard to the benefit that their product can bring by increasing housing stock. The greatest irony is that both sides are acting out of economic self-interest but at least the developers are honest about it.
The IMF article is well worth a read especially for you econ types who can follow the methodology and the math.
Check it out:
http//bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
This comment has links to an original article on housing prices and the continued decline in prices predicted in the article by an International Monetary Fund economist Vladimir Klyuev titled What Goes Up Must Come Down? House Price Dynamics In The United States.
If you go to the original article there is an interesting aspect of the analysis that is relevent to Davis real estate markets. The author explains that lack of land availability of land and zoning restrictions have caused the price bubble to be most extreme in the Northeast and the West. He also predicts further price declines nationally with the largest declines in the west.
While availability of land is not the issue in Davis the extremely tight zoning rules enacted over time by no growth advocates rstricting peripheral growth through measure J and other tools of governance have served to more than make up for the availability of land in restricting growth and inflating prices.
While I understand that homeowners acting in their own economic interest would want to restrict supply to prop up the price of their own homes I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values. What I find most irritating is the lack of disclosure about this inherent conflict while at the same time pounding the constant drumbeat about the greedy developers without regard to the benefit that their product can bring by increasing housing stock. The greatest irony is that both sides are acting out of economic self-interest but at least the developers are honest about it.
The IMF article is well worth a read especially for you econ types who can follow the methodology and the math.
The link is:
http//bigpicture.typepad.cpm/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
Or you can go to:
http://www.ml-implode.com
and follow the links
The link is:
http//bigpicture.typepad.cpm/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
Or you can go to:
http://www.ml-implode.com
and follow the links
The link is:
http//bigpicture.typepad.cpm/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
Or you can go to:
http://www.ml-implode.com
and follow the links
The link is:
http//bigpicture.typepad.cpm/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
Or you can go to:
http://www.ml-implode.com
and follow the links
The link keeps getting messed up when I post go through the ML-implode website links or goggle the article.
The link keeps getting messed up when I post go through the ML-implode website links or goggle the article.
The link keeps getting messed up when I post go through the ML-implode website links or goggle the article.
The link keeps getting messed up when I post go through the ML-implode website links or goggle the article.
Nishi and other infill sites like PGE are not easy- it is much easier to develop sites on the edge of town but that just creates commutes and sprawl. If the vision of the City is to have compact growth near jobs and downtown we need to work together to find solutions- not roadblocks.
Nishi and other infill sites like PGE are not easy- it is much easier to develop sites on the edge of town but that just creates commutes and sprawl. If the vision of the City is to have compact growth near jobs and downtown we need to work together to find solutions- not roadblocks.
Nishi and other infill sites like PGE are not easy- it is much easier to develop sites on the edge of town but that just creates commutes and sprawl. If the vision of the City is to have compact growth near jobs and downtown we need to work together to find solutions- not roadblocks.
Nishi and other infill sites like PGE are not easy- it is much easier to develop sites on the edge of town but that just creates commutes and sprawl. If the vision of the City is to have compact growth near jobs and downtown we need to work together to find solutions- not roadblocks.
HESC reflects a consensus of the politically involved and motivated people in Davis local government. In short, a reflection of what developers want to see, not necessarily what the citizens want.
The Hunt Cannery is not appropriate for housing and I think Sue Greenwald is correct in identifying it to remain as a site for future jobs. Tim Lewis blundered here and at some point he will go back to building subdivisions elsewhere. The people of Davis will never forgive him for tearing-down the buildings that could have been the heart of a clean-energy business park. Move on Tim…
The Nishi site makes for an ideal location for farming, the access appears adequate for it. Housing? Why? The University is planning a whole new town on the other side of 113. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
The PG&E site, if ever removed from its current use, and cleared of any potential PCBs etc., would make an amazing infill site, probably the best in the city's history.
The Covell site continues to do a great job as an agricultural buffer of the northern edge of the city. Importing seniors to the site really doesn't make any sense. Perhaps the city should acquire it as a permanent buffer?
I think the whole HESC process gives the impression of a check-list when it is really just an inventory. Just a bad idea…
HESC reflects a consensus of the politically involved and motivated people in Davis local government. In short, a reflection of what developers want to see, not necessarily what the citizens want.
The Hunt Cannery is not appropriate for housing and I think Sue Greenwald is correct in identifying it to remain as a site for future jobs. Tim Lewis blundered here and at some point he will go back to building subdivisions elsewhere. The people of Davis will never forgive him for tearing-down the buildings that could have been the heart of a clean-energy business park. Move on Tim…
The Nishi site makes for an ideal location for farming, the access appears adequate for it. Housing? Why? The University is planning a whole new town on the other side of 113. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
The PG&E site, if ever removed from its current use, and cleared of any potential PCBs etc., would make an amazing infill site, probably the best in the city's history.
The Covell site continues to do a great job as an agricultural buffer of the northern edge of the city. Importing seniors to the site really doesn't make any sense. Perhaps the city should acquire it as a permanent buffer?
I think the whole HESC process gives the impression of a check-list when it is really just an inventory. Just a bad idea…
HESC reflects a consensus of the politically involved and motivated people in Davis local government. In short, a reflection of what developers want to see, not necessarily what the citizens want.
The Hunt Cannery is not appropriate for housing and I think Sue Greenwald is correct in identifying it to remain as a site for future jobs. Tim Lewis blundered here and at some point he will go back to building subdivisions elsewhere. The people of Davis will never forgive him for tearing-down the buildings that could have been the heart of a clean-energy business park. Move on Tim…
The Nishi site makes for an ideal location for farming, the access appears adequate for it. Housing? Why? The University is planning a whole new town on the other side of 113. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
The PG&E site, if ever removed from its current use, and cleared of any potential PCBs etc., would make an amazing infill site, probably the best in the city's history.
The Covell site continues to do a great job as an agricultural buffer of the northern edge of the city. Importing seniors to the site really doesn't make any sense. Perhaps the city should acquire it as a permanent buffer?
I think the whole HESC process gives the impression of a check-list when it is really just an inventory. Just a bad idea…
HESC reflects a consensus of the politically involved and motivated people in Davis local government. In short, a reflection of what developers want to see, not necessarily what the citizens want.
The Hunt Cannery is not appropriate for housing and I think Sue Greenwald is correct in identifying it to remain as a site for future jobs. Tim Lewis blundered here and at some point he will go back to building subdivisions elsewhere. The people of Davis will never forgive him for tearing-down the buildings that could have been the heart of a clean-energy business park. Move on Tim…
The Nishi site makes for an ideal location for farming, the access appears adequate for it. Housing? Why? The University is planning a whole new town on the other side of 113. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
The PG&E site, if ever removed from its current use, and cleared of any potential PCBs etc., would make an amazing infill site, probably the best in the city's history.
The Covell site continues to do a great job as an agricultural buffer of the northern edge of the city. Importing seniors to the site really doesn't make any sense. Perhaps the city should acquire it as a permanent buffer?
I think the whole HESC process gives the impression of a check-list when it is really just an inventory. Just a bad idea…
Is PG&E even interested in selling that property?
Is PG&E even interested in selling that property?
Is PG&E even interested in selling that property?
Is PG&E even interested in selling that property?
Why does PG&E continue to be proposed as a potential site when they are not even interested in selling. And, if they were, the amount if I recall correctly was over $1 million.
Why does PG&E continue to be proposed as a potential site when they are not even interested in selling. And, if they were, the amount if I recall correctly was over $1 million.
Why does PG&E continue to be proposed as a potential site when they are not even interested in selling. And, if they were, the amount if I recall correctly was over $1 million.
Why does PG&E continue to be proposed as a potential site when they are not even interested in selling. And, if they were, the amount if I recall correctly was over $1 million.
stange characters appeared…hmmm
it should have said:
qestions about PG&E
stange characters appeared…hmmm
it should have said:
qestions about PG&E
stange characters appeared…hmmm
it should have said:
qestions about PG&E
stange characters appeared…hmmm
it should have said:
qestions about PG&E
hehe- if PG&E would sell the property for $1 million there would be a very long line of people willing to buy it…
They are willing to sell for the right price, and that price is dozens of times that number. Given the size of the parcel and its location, it would be a bargain at $1M an acre…
hehe- if PG&E would sell the property for $1 million there would be a very long line of people willing to buy it…
They are willing to sell for the right price, and that price is dozens of times that number. Given the size of the parcel and its location, it would be a bargain at $1M an acre…
hehe- if PG&E would sell the property for $1 million there would be a very long line of people willing to buy it…
They are willing to sell for the right price, and that price is dozens of times that number. Given the size of the parcel and its location, it would be a bargain at $1M an acre…
hehe- if PG&E would sell the property for $1 million there would be a very long line of people willing to buy it…
They are willing to sell for the right price, and that price is dozens of times that number. Given the size of the parcel and its location, it would be a bargain at $1M an acre…
Since the HESC did not come up with what the City Council majority was looking for, which was a go ahead for Covell Village, it will be interesting to see how Asmundson and Saylor attempt to get around that issue. After all, Measure J will be the deciding factor in whether Covell Village gets built, unless the gambit is to weaken Measure J with unnecessary amendments.
From the City Council’s discussion, I had the distinct impression Saylor and Asmundson are clearly for more housing, and the sooner the better. (Ruth: the city is like a baby, it needs to grow to stay healthy, or it will be retarded. Can you believe this inept and inapt analogy???) Souza was a bit more hesitant. He knows he made a promise to leave Measure J alone, and he knows the results of Measure J will be to crush the Covell Village development reprised. So he is caught by his own campaign rhetoric.
I would say Saylor and Asmundson are doomed right now, because the public will not agree to the new Covell Village project as it stands. That was pretty clear at the last City Council meeting. Ruth’s attempt to squelch public comment will not work to change a Measure J vote on Covell Village.
As it turns out, Greenwald and Heystek have the pulse of the public, and Souza is on the fence because of his campaign promise on Measure J. A golden opportunity for smart growth folks to actually get a majority on the City Council to go along with smart growth views, if they play their cards right. Remember, both Saylor and Souza are aiming for higher office, which means public pressure can be brought to bear.
What is worrisome is the city staff’s recommendation that allows yellow light sites be moved up to green light sites, in complete contraindication of HESC’s rating system. This is one thing that needs to be fought tooth and nail by smart growth proponents. It is time to start a letter writing campaign to the Davis Enterprise on this issue, since Ruth is going to curtail public comment to a mere 15 minutes.
Shame on you Ruth – what makes you think the public cares about your trips abroad, but not local housing issues? Almost sounds as if Ruth needs to be recalled if she doesn’t change this shameful policy of curtailing public comment.
Furthermore, what we need is more commercial development that generates more tax revenue. Where in the mix is that notion? I’m not seeing it. If we don’t want to go belly up like Vacaville, then this is where we need to go.
Since the HESC did not come up with what the City Council majority was looking for, which was a go ahead for Covell Village, it will be interesting to see how Asmundson and Saylor attempt to get around that issue. After all, Measure J will be the deciding factor in whether Covell Village gets built, unless the gambit is to weaken Measure J with unnecessary amendments.
From the City Council’s discussion, I had the distinct impression Saylor and Asmundson are clearly for more housing, and the sooner the better. (Ruth: the city is like a baby, it needs to grow to stay healthy, or it will be retarded. Can you believe this inept and inapt analogy???) Souza was a bit more hesitant. He knows he made a promise to leave Measure J alone, and he knows the results of Measure J will be to crush the Covell Village development reprised. So he is caught by his own campaign rhetoric.
I would say Saylor and Asmundson are doomed right now, because the public will not agree to the new Covell Village project as it stands. That was pretty clear at the last City Council meeting. Ruth’s attempt to squelch public comment will not work to change a Measure J vote on Covell Village.
As it turns out, Greenwald and Heystek have the pulse of the public, and Souza is on the fence because of his campaign promise on Measure J. A golden opportunity for smart growth folks to actually get a majority on the City Council to go along with smart growth views, if they play their cards right. Remember, both Saylor and Souza are aiming for higher office, which means public pressure can be brought to bear.
What is worrisome is the city staff’s recommendation that allows yellow light sites be moved up to green light sites, in complete contraindication of HESC’s rating system. This is one thing that needs to be fought tooth and nail by smart growth proponents. It is time to start a letter writing campaign to the Davis Enterprise on this issue, since Ruth is going to curtail public comment to a mere 15 minutes.
Shame on you Ruth – what makes you think the public cares about your trips abroad, but not local housing issues? Almost sounds as if Ruth needs to be recalled if she doesn’t change this shameful policy of curtailing public comment.
Furthermore, what we need is more commercial development that generates more tax revenue. Where in the mix is that notion? I’m not seeing it. If we don’t want to go belly up like Vacaville, then this is where we need to go.
Since the HESC did not come up with what the City Council majority was looking for, which was a go ahead for Covell Village, it will be interesting to see how Asmundson and Saylor attempt to get around that issue. After all, Measure J will be the deciding factor in whether Covell Village gets built, unless the gambit is to weaken Measure J with unnecessary amendments.
From the City Council’s discussion, I had the distinct impression Saylor and Asmundson are clearly for more housing, and the sooner the better. (Ruth: the city is like a baby, it needs to grow to stay healthy, or it will be retarded. Can you believe this inept and inapt analogy???) Souza was a bit more hesitant. He knows he made a promise to leave Measure J alone, and he knows the results of Measure J will be to crush the Covell Village development reprised. So he is caught by his own campaign rhetoric.
I would say Saylor and Asmundson are doomed right now, because the public will not agree to the new Covell Village project as it stands. That was pretty clear at the last City Council meeting. Ruth’s attempt to squelch public comment will not work to change a Measure J vote on Covell Village.
As it turns out, Greenwald and Heystek have the pulse of the public, and Souza is on the fence because of his campaign promise on Measure J. A golden opportunity for smart growth folks to actually get a majority on the City Council to go along with smart growth views, if they play their cards right. Remember, both Saylor and Souza are aiming for higher office, which means public pressure can be brought to bear.
What is worrisome is the city staff’s recommendation that allows yellow light sites be moved up to green light sites, in complete contraindication of HESC’s rating system. This is one thing that needs to be fought tooth and nail by smart growth proponents. It is time to start a letter writing campaign to the Davis Enterprise on this issue, since Ruth is going to curtail public comment to a mere 15 minutes.
Shame on you Ruth – what makes you think the public cares about your trips abroad, but not local housing issues? Almost sounds as if Ruth needs to be recalled if she doesn’t change this shameful policy of curtailing public comment.
Furthermore, what we need is more commercial development that generates more tax revenue. Where in the mix is that notion? I’m not seeing it. If we don’t want to go belly up like Vacaville, then this is where we need to go.
Since the HESC did not come up with what the City Council majority was looking for, which was a go ahead for Covell Village, it will be interesting to see how Asmundson and Saylor attempt to get around that issue. After all, Measure J will be the deciding factor in whether Covell Village gets built, unless the gambit is to weaken Measure J with unnecessary amendments.
From the City Council’s discussion, I had the distinct impression Saylor and Asmundson are clearly for more housing, and the sooner the better. (Ruth: the city is like a baby, it needs to grow to stay healthy, or it will be retarded. Can you believe this inept and inapt analogy???) Souza was a bit more hesitant. He knows he made a promise to leave Measure J alone, and he knows the results of Measure J will be to crush the Covell Village development reprised. So he is caught by his own campaign rhetoric.
I would say Saylor and Asmundson are doomed right now, because the public will not agree to the new Covell Village project as it stands. That was pretty clear at the last City Council meeting. Ruth’s attempt to squelch public comment will not work to change a Measure J vote on Covell Village.
As it turns out, Greenwald and Heystek have the pulse of the public, and Souza is on the fence because of his campaign promise on Measure J. A golden opportunity for smart growth folks to actually get a majority on the City Council to go along with smart growth views, if they play their cards right. Remember, both Saylor and Souza are aiming for higher office, which means public pressure can be brought to bear.
What is worrisome is the city staff’s recommendation that allows yellow light sites be moved up to green light sites, in complete contraindication of HESC’s rating system. This is one thing that needs to be fought tooth and nail by smart growth proponents. It is time to start a letter writing campaign to the Davis Enterprise on this issue, since Ruth is going to curtail public comment to a mere 15 minutes.
Shame on you Ruth – what makes you think the public cares about your trips abroad, but not local housing issues? Almost sounds as if Ruth needs to be recalled if she doesn’t change this shameful policy of curtailing public comment.
Furthermore, what we need is more commercial development that generates more tax revenue. Where in the mix is that notion? I’m not seeing it. If we don’t want to go belly up like Vacaville, then this is where we need to go.
I bet Vacaville is surprised to be going belly-up and not Vallejo.
I bet Vacaville is surprised to be going belly-up and not Vallejo.
I bet Vacaville is surprised to be going belly-up and not Vallejo.
I bet Vacaville is surprised to be going belly-up and not Vallejo.
“I bet Vacaville is surprised to be going belly-up and not Vallejo.”
Ooops!!! Sorry – meant Vallejo!!! Thanks for catching the mistake…
“I bet Vacaville is surprised to be going belly-up and not Vallejo.”
Ooops!!! Sorry – meant Vallejo!!! Thanks for catching the mistake…
“I bet Vacaville is surprised to be going belly-up and not Vallejo.”
Ooops!!! Sorry – meant Vallejo!!! Thanks for catching the mistake…
“I bet Vacaville is surprised to be going belly-up and not Vallejo.”
Ooops!!! Sorry – meant Vallejo!!! Thanks for catching the mistake…
“I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values.”
I just wanted to defend my own “nimby-ism”: I bought a HOME in Davis not an investment, so I am not that concerned about what these developments will do to the short term value of my home. I know that in 30 years when I retire and move to my island paradise, my home value will be greater than what I paid for it.
So, I am one of those terrible NIMBY folks who is concerned about quality of life issues. I chose the community of Davis partly for what I perceived as community values, for its size, for its continued connection to its agricultural roots– all of which will change dramatically with large peripheral growth. I support smart infill projects.
I did not like Ruth A’s analogy about the baby that needs to be allowed to grow. There are communities all over this nation that are at capacity and can not grow. I am sure they would balk at being described as “retarded”. They simply learn to live and plan based on the community population and fluctuations that they have– this includes school districts which must endure the cycles of aging and revitalization that are inevitable in that situation. Eventually Davis will be built out as well, and then what will we do? We can not suggest a new development to bolster school enrollments. We won’t be able to build new “affordable” housing for young families. We will be forced to deal with the big sprawling mess that we have made.
“I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values.”
I just wanted to defend my own “nimby-ism”: I bought a HOME in Davis not an investment, so I am not that concerned about what these developments will do to the short term value of my home. I know that in 30 years when I retire and move to my island paradise, my home value will be greater than what I paid for it.
So, I am one of those terrible NIMBY folks who is concerned about quality of life issues. I chose the community of Davis partly for what I perceived as community values, for its size, for its continued connection to its agricultural roots– all of which will change dramatically with large peripheral growth. I support smart infill projects.
I did not like Ruth A’s analogy about the baby that needs to be allowed to grow. There are communities all over this nation that are at capacity and can not grow. I am sure they would balk at being described as “retarded”. They simply learn to live and plan based on the community population and fluctuations that they have– this includes school districts which must endure the cycles of aging and revitalization that are inevitable in that situation. Eventually Davis will be built out as well, and then what will we do? We can not suggest a new development to bolster school enrollments. We won’t be able to build new “affordable” housing for young families. We will be forced to deal with the big sprawling mess that we have made.
“I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values.”
I just wanted to defend my own “nimby-ism”: I bought a HOME in Davis not an investment, so I am not that concerned about what these developments will do to the short term value of my home. I know that in 30 years when I retire and move to my island paradise, my home value will be greater than what I paid for it.
So, I am one of those terrible NIMBY folks who is concerned about quality of life issues. I chose the community of Davis partly for what I perceived as community values, for its size, for its continued connection to its agricultural roots– all of which will change dramatically with large peripheral growth. I support smart infill projects.
I did not like Ruth A’s analogy about the baby that needs to be allowed to grow. There are communities all over this nation that are at capacity and can not grow. I am sure they would balk at being described as “retarded”. They simply learn to live and plan based on the community population and fluctuations that they have– this includes school districts which must endure the cycles of aging and revitalization that are inevitable in that situation. Eventually Davis will be built out as well, and then what will we do? We can not suggest a new development to bolster school enrollments. We won’t be able to build new “affordable” housing for young families. We will be forced to deal with the big sprawling mess that we have made.
“I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values.”
I just wanted to defend my own “nimby-ism”: I bought a HOME in Davis not an investment, so I am not that concerned about what these developments will do to the short term value of my home. I know that in 30 years when I retire and move to my island paradise, my home value will be greater than what I paid for it.
So, I am one of those terrible NIMBY folks who is concerned about quality of life issues. I chose the community of Davis partly for what I perceived as community values, for its size, for its continued connection to its agricultural roots– all of which will change dramatically with large peripheral growth. I support smart infill projects.
I did not like Ruth A’s analogy about the baby that needs to be allowed to grow. There are communities all over this nation that are at capacity and can not grow. I am sure they would balk at being described as “retarded”. They simply learn to live and plan based on the community population and fluctuations that they have– this includes school districts which must endure the cycles of aging and revitalization that are inevitable in that situation. Eventually Davis will be built out as well, and then what will we do? We can not suggest a new development to bolster school enrollments. We won’t be able to build new “affordable” housing for young families. We will be forced to deal with the big sprawling mess that we have made.
PG&E has expressed, in writing, its interest in working with the City for infill development on at least part of the PG&E corp yard parcel. (They dont need to use that valuable land to store a bunch of trucks.) Sue, u must have the letter from PG&E around. Give it to DPD, and post it.
That parcel is a very viable site for some terrific infill, as Sue has argued for a long time.
PG&E has expressed, in writing, its interest in working with the City for infill development on at least part of the PG&E corp yard parcel. (They dont need to use that valuable land to store a bunch of trucks.) Sue, u must have the letter from PG&E around. Give it to DPD, and post it.
That parcel is a very viable site for some terrific infill, as Sue has argued for a long time.
PG&E has expressed, in writing, its interest in working with the City for infill development on at least part of the PG&E corp yard parcel. (They dont need to use that valuable land to store a bunch of trucks.) Sue, u must have the letter from PG&E around. Give it to DPD, and post it.
That parcel is a very viable site for some terrific infill, as Sue has argued for a long time.
PG&E has expressed, in writing, its interest in working with the City for infill development on at least part of the PG&E corp yard parcel. (They dont need to use that valuable land to store a bunch of trucks.) Sue, u must have the letter from PG&E around. Give it to DPD, and post it.
That parcel is a very viable site for some terrific infill, as Sue has argued for a long time.
Nishi is a development disaster, unless they have the access through the main campus, and provide the appropriate land and other mitigation public benefits.
Olive Drive must not be used as an access, other than for emergency vehicles only.
For the public: the Richards Blvd Subway (under the railroad tracks) is a growth-limiting historic structure. The developers cannot get EIR approval of any more exterior parcels in South Davis without that underpass being significantly widened. If Olive is used for access to Nishi, then it will completely jam the underpass, and could lead to an adverse public vote and widening of the tunnel. That means a future EIR for large parcels in South Davis might pencil out.
Also, Nishi has significant air pollution issues due to it being lower, and right next to the I-80/Hwy 113 freeway system, with the frequent trains on the other side. (Hey, owners of Nishi: you want your college age kids to breath that stuff?? I doubt you would put your loved ones into a dorm on Nishi.)
Finally, remember that the HESC did not require exterior parcel owners to identify their mitigation before the committee voted. Covell Village’s main rep on the HESC opposed making the owners disclose the mitigation, and I lost that issue.
So where is Nishi’s “on site, 2/1 or better adjacent” mitigation? They do not want to talk about that. I asked and asked, and never got an answer. They probably want to give the city the usual junk land out in the county that no one wants, certainly not for urban development.
Everyone: just say NO to Nishi, until they have a plan that is acceptable to the residents of the City.
Nishi is a development disaster, unless they have the access through the main campus, and provide the appropriate land and other mitigation public benefits.
Olive Drive must not be used as an access, other than for emergency vehicles only.
For the public: the Richards Blvd Subway (under the railroad tracks) is a growth-limiting historic structure. The developers cannot get EIR approval of any more exterior parcels in South Davis without that underpass being significantly widened. If Olive is used for access to Nishi, then it will completely jam the underpass, and could lead to an adverse public vote and widening of the tunnel. That means a future EIR for large parcels in South Davis might pencil out.
Also, Nishi has significant air pollution issues due to it being lower, and right next to the I-80/Hwy 113 freeway system, with the frequent trains on the other side. (Hey, owners of Nishi: you want your college age kids to breath that stuff?? I doubt you would put your loved ones into a dorm on Nishi.)
Finally, remember that the HESC did not require exterior parcel owners to identify their mitigation before the committee voted. Covell Village’s main rep on the HESC opposed making the owners disclose the mitigation, and I lost that issue.
So where is Nishi’s “on site, 2/1 or better adjacent” mitigation? They do not want to talk about that. I asked and asked, and never got an answer. They probably want to give the city the usual junk land out in the county that no one wants, certainly not for urban development.
Everyone: just say NO to Nishi, until they have a plan that is acceptable to the residents of the City.
Nishi is a development disaster, unless they have the access through the main campus, and provide the appropriate land and other mitigation public benefits.
Olive Drive must not be used as an access, other than for emergency vehicles only.
For the public: the Richards Blvd Subway (under the railroad tracks) is a growth-limiting historic structure. The developers cannot get EIR approval of any more exterior parcels in South Davis without that underpass being significantly widened. If Olive is used for access to Nishi, then it will completely jam the underpass, and could lead to an adverse public vote and widening of the tunnel. That means a future EIR for large parcels in South Davis might pencil out.
Also, Nishi has significant air pollution issues due to it being lower, and right next to the I-80/Hwy 113 freeway system, with the frequent trains on the other side. (Hey, owners of Nishi: you want your college age kids to breath that stuff?? I doubt you would put your loved ones into a dorm on Nishi.)
Finally, remember that the HESC did not require exterior parcel owners to identify their mitigation before the committee voted. Covell Village’s main rep on the HESC opposed making the owners disclose the mitigation, and I lost that issue.
So where is Nishi’s “on site, 2/1 or better adjacent” mitigation? They do not want to talk about that. I asked and asked, and never got an answer. They probably want to give the city the usual junk land out in the county that no one wants, certainly not for urban development.
Everyone: just say NO to Nishi, until they have a plan that is acceptable to the residents of the City.
Nishi is a development disaster, unless they have the access through the main campus, and provide the appropriate land and other mitigation public benefits.
Olive Drive must not be used as an access, other than for emergency vehicles only.
For the public: the Richards Blvd Subway (under the railroad tracks) is a growth-limiting historic structure. The developers cannot get EIR approval of any more exterior parcels in South Davis without that underpass being significantly widened. If Olive is used for access to Nishi, then it will completely jam the underpass, and could lead to an adverse public vote and widening of the tunnel. That means a future EIR for large parcels in South Davis might pencil out.
Also, Nishi has significant air pollution issues due to it being lower, and right next to the I-80/Hwy 113 freeway system, with the frequent trains on the other side. (Hey, owners of Nishi: you want your college age kids to breath that stuff?? I doubt you would put your loved ones into a dorm on Nishi.)
Finally, remember that the HESC did not require exterior parcel owners to identify their mitigation before the committee voted. Covell Village’s main rep on the HESC opposed making the owners disclose the mitigation, and I lost that issue.
So where is Nishi’s “on site, 2/1 or better adjacent” mitigation? They do not want to talk about that. I asked and asked, and never got an answer. They probably want to give the city the usual junk land out in the county that no one wants, certainly not for urban development.
Everyone: just say NO to Nishi, until they have a plan that is acceptable to the residents of the City.
To clarify on the PG&E parcel: I personally spoke with the PG&E Govt Relations Rep, and he indicated to me that PG&E was interested, and had told staff. I am sure there was a favorable letter, but I dont have a copy of it.
To clarify on the PG&E parcel: I personally spoke with the PG&E Govt Relations Rep, and he indicated to me that PG&E was interested, and had told staff. I am sure there was a favorable letter, but I dont have a copy of it.
To clarify on the PG&E parcel: I personally spoke with the PG&E Govt Relations Rep, and he indicated to me that PG&E was interested, and had told staff. I am sure there was a favorable letter, but I dont have a copy of it.
To clarify on the PG&E parcel: I personally spoke with the PG&E Govt Relations Rep, and he indicated to me that PG&E was interested, and had told staff. I am sure there was a favorable letter, but I dont have a copy of it.
“For its continued connection to its agricultural roots”
How does infill with postage stamp lots and almost no garden space fulfill this connection?
You claim to not care about property values because you are sure when you sell it will be worth more than you paid. Isn’t that contradictory? If you really were unconcerned you would leave it to charity.
The point of my post was that all this restriction of growth drives prices up and that the people who benefit from that should be honest with themselves and the community about this as one of their motives. Obviously you are still in denial.
“For its continued connection to its agricultural roots”
How does infill with postage stamp lots and almost no garden space fulfill this connection?
You claim to not care about property values because you are sure when you sell it will be worth more than you paid. Isn’t that contradictory? If you really were unconcerned you would leave it to charity.
The point of my post was that all this restriction of growth drives prices up and that the people who benefit from that should be honest with themselves and the community about this as one of their motives. Obviously you are still in denial.
“For its continued connection to its agricultural roots”
How does infill with postage stamp lots and almost no garden space fulfill this connection?
You claim to not care about property values because you are sure when you sell it will be worth more than you paid. Isn’t that contradictory? If you really were unconcerned you would leave it to charity.
The point of my post was that all this restriction of growth drives prices up and that the people who benefit from that should be honest with themselves and the community about this as one of their motives. Obviously you are still in denial.
“For its continued connection to its agricultural roots”
How does infill with postage stamp lots and almost no garden space fulfill this connection?
You claim to not care about property values because you are sure when you sell it will be worth more than you paid. Isn’t that contradictory? If you really were unconcerned you would leave it to charity.
The point of my post was that all this restriction of growth drives prices up and that the people who benefit from that should be honest with themselves and the community about this as one of their motives. Obviously you are still in denial.
There are OFTEN conflicts in DPD’s “Stories”. Sue, don’t give anything to DPD. Let him research it for himself. That way he might know the subject. Thanks
There are OFTEN conflicts in DPD’s “Stories”. Sue, don’t give anything to DPD. Let him research it for himself. That way he might know the subject. Thanks
There are OFTEN conflicts in DPD’s “Stories”. Sue, don’t give anything to DPD. Let him research it for himself. That way he might know the subject. Thanks
There are OFTEN conflicts in DPD’s “Stories”. Sue, don’t give anything to DPD. Let him research it for himself. That way he might know the subject. Thanks
“I chose the community of Davis partly for what I perceived as community values, for its size…”
Of course once you got here, the size was X + 1.
“I chose the community of Davis partly for what I perceived as community values, for its size…”
Of course once you got here, the size was X + 1.
“I chose the community of Davis partly for what I perceived as community values, for its size…”
Of course once you got here, the size was X + 1.
“I chose the community of Davis partly for what I perceived as community values, for its size…”
Of course once you got here, the size was X + 1.
Unless the individual built their own house in Davis when they moved here, it really was not.
Unless the individual built their own house in Davis when they moved here, it really was not.
Unless the individual built their own house in Davis when they moved here, it really was not.
Unless the individual built their own house in Davis when they moved here, it really was not.
Hey PGE Booster, last time I checked PGE is located adjacent to both Interstate 80 and the RR tracks, but not very close to UCD. However, air quality can be mitigated with setbacks from source (300-500 feet) – tree screening capturing pollutants, and air filtering inside residences. The result will be that people living at PGE will be breathing cleaner air than areas further from the source.
Hey PGE Booster, last time I checked PGE is located adjacent to both Interstate 80 and the RR tracks, but not very close to UCD. However, air quality can be mitigated with setbacks from source (300-500 feet) – tree screening capturing pollutants, and air filtering inside residences. The result will be that people living at PGE will be breathing cleaner air than areas further from the source.
Hey PGE Booster, last time I checked PGE is located adjacent to both Interstate 80 and the RR tracks, but not very close to UCD. However, air quality can be mitigated with setbacks from source (300-500 feet) – tree screening capturing pollutants, and air filtering inside residences. The result will be that people living at PGE will be breathing cleaner air than areas further from the source.
Hey PGE Booster, last time I checked PGE is located adjacent to both Interstate 80 and the RR tracks, but not very close to UCD. However, air quality can be mitigated with setbacks from source (300-500 feet) – tree screening capturing pollutants, and air filtering inside residences. The result will be that people living at PGE will be breathing cleaner air than areas further from the source.
Pretty sure PG&E site is less than a mile from UCD and easily bikeable there and even walkable.
Just looked it up, it's about .7 miles from 3rd and L to 3rd and A. That's easily walkable for students and faculty but even more easily bikable. So I'm not sure how you can say PG&E isn't close to UCD.
Pretty sure PG&E site is less than a mile from UCD and easily bikeable there and even walkable.
Just looked it up, it's about .7 miles from 3rd and L to 3rd and A. That's easily walkable for students and faculty but even more easily bikable. So I'm not sure how you can say PG&E isn't close to UCD.
Pretty sure PG&E site is less than a mile from UCD and easily bikeable there and even walkable.
Just looked it up, it's about .7 miles from 3rd and L to 3rd and A. That's easily walkable for students and faculty but even more easily bikable. So I'm not sure how you can say PG&E isn't close to UCD.
Pretty sure PG&E site is less than a mile from UCD and easily bikeable there and even walkable.
Just looked it up, it's about .7 miles from 3rd and L to 3rd and A. That's easily walkable for students and faculty but even more easily bikable. So I'm not sure how you can say PG&E isn't close to UCD.
DPD,
Is it just coincidence that you recently dropped “SENSES” Magazine as your banner sponsor, the owner of which also owns the Wildhorse Horse Ranch parcel you now support developing?
Are you trying to avoid the appearance of a conflict? Or did they go out of business? Or maybe, now that Cecilia isn’t running, the Monfareds no longer feel the need to support her through your website advertising for a magazine that has zero circulation in Davis?
On the issue itself, your saying “It’s only 40 acres” is a recipe for destroying ag land piecemeal through the death of a thousand cuts. Growth like this makes no sense when it’s not part of a longer range plan that accounts for (and pays) for all its impacts.
DPD,
Is it just coincidence that you recently dropped “SENSES” Magazine as your banner sponsor, the owner of which also owns the Wildhorse Horse Ranch parcel you now support developing?
Are you trying to avoid the appearance of a conflict? Or did they go out of business? Or maybe, now that Cecilia isn’t running, the Monfareds no longer feel the need to support her through your website advertising for a magazine that has zero circulation in Davis?
On the issue itself, your saying “It’s only 40 acres” is a recipe for destroying ag land piecemeal through the death of a thousand cuts. Growth like this makes no sense when it’s not part of a longer range plan that accounts for (and pays) for all its impacts.
DPD,
Is it just coincidence that you recently dropped “SENSES” Magazine as your banner sponsor, the owner of which also owns the Wildhorse Horse Ranch parcel you now support developing?
Are you trying to avoid the appearance of a conflict? Or did they go out of business? Or maybe, now that Cecilia isn’t running, the Monfareds no longer feel the need to support her through your website advertising for a magazine that has zero circulation in Davis?
On the issue itself, your saying “It’s only 40 acres” is a recipe for destroying ag land piecemeal through the death of a thousand cuts. Growth like this makes no sense when it’s not part of a longer range plan that accounts for (and pays) for all its impacts.
DPD,
Is it just coincidence that you recently dropped “SENSES” Magazine as your banner sponsor, the owner of which also owns the Wildhorse Horse Ranch parcel you now support developing?
Are you trying to avoid the appearance of a conflict? Or did they go out of business? Or maybe, now that Cecilia isn’t running, the Monfareds no longer feel the need to support her through your website advertising for a magazine that has zero circulation in Davis?
On the issue itself, your saying “It’s only 40 acres” is a recipe for destroying ag land piecemeal through the death of a thousand cuts. Growth like this makes no sense when it’s not part of a longer range plan that accounts for (and pays) for all its impacts.
Wasn’t my decision. The publishers of the magazine decided not to renew their ad at this time. You are free to ask them why.
Wasn’t my decision. The publishers of the magazine decided not to renew their ad at this time. You are free to ask them why.
Wasn’t my decision. The publishers of the magazine decided not to renew their ad at this time. You are free to ask them why.
Wasn’t my decision. The publishers of the magazine decided not to renew their ad at this time. You are free to ask them why.
“On the issue itself, your saying “It’s only 40 acres” is a recipe for destroying ag land piecemeal through the death of a thousand cuts. Growth like this makes no sense when it’s not part of a longer range plan that accounts for (and pays) for all its impacts.”
I didn’t make any value judgment on the property itself, just laying out the issues. I have concerns that parcels that size do not have to 2:1 ag mitigation per the exemption of the council. I’m also concerned that people were told that the neighbors supported the original proposal when in fact, they clearly did not.
It will take a tremendous project for me to support any Measure J project.
“On the issue itself, your saying “It’s only 40 acres” is a recipe for destroying ag land piecemeal through the death of a thousand cuts. Growth like this makes no sense when it’s not part of a longer range plan that accounts for (and pays) for all its impacts.”
I didn’t make any value judgment on the property itself, just laying out the issues. I have concerns that parcels that size do not have to 2:1 ag mitigation per the exemption of the council. I’m also concerned that people were told that the neighbors supported the original proposal when in fact, they clearly did not.
It will take a tremendous project for me to support any Measure J project.
“On the issue itself, your saying “It’s only 40 acres” is a recipe for destroying ag land piecemeal through the death of a thousand cuts. Growth like this makes no sense when it’s not part of a longer range plan that accounts for (and pays) for all its impacts.”
I didn’t make any value judgment on the property itself, just laying out the issues. I have concerns that parcels that size do not have to 2:1 ag mitigation per the exemption of the council. I’m also concerned that people were told that the neighbors supported the original proposal when in fact, they clearly did not.
It will take a tremendous project for me to support any Measure J project.
“On the issue itself, your saying “It’s only 40 acres” is a recipe for destroying ag land piecemeal through the death of a thousand cuts. Growth like this makes no sense when it’s not part of a longer range plan that accounts for (and pays) for all its impacts.”
I didn’t make any value judgment on the property itself, just laying out the issues. I have concerns that parcels that size do not have to 2:1 ag mitigation per the exemption of the council. I’m also concerned that people were told that the neighbors supported the original proposal when in fact, they clearly did not.
It will take a tremendous project for me to support any Measure J project.
Doug Paul Davis, earlier today you quoted concerning Nishi:
“I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.”
And here is your comment today concerning PGE:
“That’s easily walkable for students and faculty but even more easily bikable.”
Now Nishi is much closer to UCD than PGE. True colors of the no-growther.
Doug Paul Davis, earlier today you quoted concerning Nishi:
“I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.”
And here is your comment today concerning PGE:
“That’s easily walkable for students and faculty but even more easily bikable.”
Now Nishi is much closer to UCD than PGE. True colors of the no-growther.
Doug Paul Davis, earlier today you quoted concerning Nishi:
“I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.”
And here is your comment today concerning PGE:
“That’s easily walkable for students and faculty but even more easily bikable.”
Now Nishi is much closer to UCD than PGE. True colors of the no-growther.
Doug Paul Davis, earlier today you quoted concerning Nishi:
“I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.”
And here is your comment today concerning PGE:
“That’s easily walkable for students and faculty but even more easily bikable.”
Now Nishi is much closer to UCD than PGE. True colors of the no-growther.
But I wasn't making the same point in both posts.
The first point referred to the lack of vehicular access to Richards and Downtown from Nishi which I think will end up being a huge headache and won't end up flying. That is very different from the second point I made. The second point referred to the distance between the PG&E site and UC Davis. People at the PG&E site will have vehicular access in addition to having the choice about using bikes or walking to campus.
But I wasn't making the same point in both posts.
The first point referred to the lack of vehicular access to Richards and Downtown from Nishi which I think will end up being a huge headache and won't end up flying. That is very different from the second point I made. The second point referred to the distance between the PG&E site and UC Davis. People at the PG&E site will have vehicular access in addition to having the choice about using bikes or walking to campus.
But I wasn't making the same point in both posts.
The first point referred to the lack of vehicular access to Richards and Downtown from Nishi which I think will end up being a huge headache and won't end up flying. That is very different from the second point I made. The second point referred to the distance between the PG&E site and UC Davis. People at the PG&E site will have vehicular access in addition to having the choice about using bikes or walking to campus.
But I wasn't making the same point in both posts.
The first point referred to the lack of vehicular access to Richards and Downtown from Nishi which I think will end up being a huge headache and won't end up flying. That is very different from the second point I made. The second point referred to the distance between the PG&E site and UC Davis. People at the PG&E site will have vehicular access in addition to having the choice about using bikes or walking to campus.
I would just like to mention how excited I am about the potential for a major infill project at the PG&E site.
First off, take a look at the map. The site runs along L Street between 2nd and 5th. The site is fairly far from the freeway. It lies perpendicular to the railroad tracks, with its short side adjacent to the tracks. That side could be buffered by office buildings, which would also PG&E to keep its office uses.
The site is a very short walk to downtown and the Amtrack station. I’ve been looking at smart growth models in a number of celebrated cities, and I must say that the PG&E site remains about the best transit-oriented site that I’ve seen.
Keep in mind that 26% of American households consist of just one person. The majority consist of only one or two people. Yet we have almost no ownership housing in Davis really geared for small families without children (except Rancho Yolo).
People in one or two family households can live more energy-efficiently while often living more happily in beautifully designed condominiums walking (or wheel-chair) distance from downtown and public transportation hubs and neighborhoods that are more lively and less lonely.
We have an incredible opportunity here, if we work collaboratively with PG&E. The public enthusiasm for this project is enormous. A huge number of empty-nesters that I talk with, and many young professionals, have expressed serious interest in moving into such a project.
A very well designed high-density project at this site would be a housing option of preference for many people in Davis who don’t want to take up so much space, and don’t want to drive, but want to be close to downtown and public transportation, and it could put our already great down on the map internationally in terms of green planning.
The best infill projects don’t just fall into your hands; they have to be actively pursued, and it is so important that we start now.
I would just like to mention how excited I am about the potential for a major infill project at the PG&E site.
First off, take a look at the map. The site runs along L Street between 2nd and 5th. The site is fairly far from the freeway. It lies perpendicular to the railroad tracks, with its short side adjacent to the tracks. That side could be buffered by office buildings, which would also PG&E to keep its office uses.
The site is a very short walk to downtown and the Amtrack station. I’ve been looking at smart growth models in a number of celebrated cities, and I must say that the PG&E site remains about the best transit-oriented site that I’ve seen.
Keep in mind that 26% of American households consist of just one person. The majority consist of only one or two people. Yet we have almost no ownership housing in Davis really geared for small families without children (except Rancho Yolo).
People in one or two family households can live more energy-efficiently while often living more happily in beautifully designed condominiums walking (or wheel-chair) distance from downtown and public transportation hubs and neighborhoods that are more lively and less lonely.
We have an incredible opportunity here, if we work collaboratively with PG&E. The public enthusiasm for this project is enormous. A huge number of empty-nesters that I talk with, and many young professionals, have expressed serious interest in moving into such a project.
A very well designed high-density project at this site would be a housing option of preference for many people in Davis who don’t want to take up so much space, and don’t want to drive, but want to be close to downtown and public transportation, and it could put our already great down on the map internationally in terms of green planning.
The best infill projects don’t just fall into your hands; they have to be actively pursued, and it is so important that we start now.
I would just like to mention how excited I am about the potential for a major infill project at the PG&E site.
First off, take a look at the map. The site runs along L Street between 2nd and 5th. The site is fairly far from the freeway. It lies perpendicular to the railroad tracks, with its short side adjacent to the tracks. That side could be buffered by office buildings, which would also PG&E to keep its office uses.
The site is a very short walk to downtown and the Amtrack station. I’ve been looking at smart growth models in a number of celebrated cities, and I must say that the PG&E site remains about the best transit-oriented site that I’ve seen.
Keep in mind that 26% of American households consist of just one person. The majority consist of only one or two people. Yet we have almost no ownership housing in Davis really geared for small families without children (except Rancho Yolo).
People in one or two family households can live more energy-efficiently while often living more happily in beautifully designed condominiums walking (or wheel-chair) distance from downtown and public transportation hubs and neighborhoods that are more lively and less lonely.
We have an incredible opportunity here, if we work collaboratively with PG&E. The public enthusiasm for this project is enormous. A huge number of empty-nesters that I talk with, and many young professionals, have expressed serious interest in moving into such a project.
A very well designed high-density project at this site would be a housing option of preference for many people in Davis who don’t want to take up so much space, and don’t want to drive, but want to be close to downtown and public transportation, and it could put our already great down on the map internationally in terms of green planning.
The best infill projects don’t just fall into your hands; they have to be actively pursued, and it is so important that we start now.
I would just like to mention how excited I am about the potential for a major infill project at the PG&E site.
First off, take a look at the map. The site runs along L Street between 2nd and 5th. The site is fairly far from the freeway. It lies perpendicular to the railroad tracks, with its short side adjacent to the tracks. That side could be buffered by office buildings, which would also PG&E to keep its office uses.
The site is a very short walk to downtown and the Amtrack station. I’ve been looking at smart growth models in a number of celebrated cities, and I must say that the PG&E site remains about the best transit-oriented site that I’ve seen.
Keep in mind that 26% of American households consist of just one person. The majority consist of only one or two people. Yet we have almost no ownership housing in Davis really geared for small families without children (except Rancho Yolo).
People in one or two family households can live more energy-efficiently while often living more happily in beautifully designed condominiums walking (or wheel-chair) distance from downtown and public transportation hubs and neighborhoods that are more lively and less lonely.
We have an incredible opportunity here, if we work collaboratively with PG&E. The public enthusiasm for this project is enormous. A huge number of empty-nesters that I talk with, and many young professionals, have expressed serious interest in moving into such a project.
A very well designed high-density project at this site would be a housing option of preference for many people in Davis who don’t want to take up so much space, and don’t want to drive, but want to be close to downtown and public transportation, and it could put our already great down on the map internationally in terms of green planning.
The best infill projects don’t just fall into your hands; they have to be actively pursued, and it is so important that we start now.
How will the cars get to PGE? Will they be allowed to use Richards (and travel through the existing old east Davis neighborhood); or will they simply commute to Sacramento via Mace Blvd.?
How will the cars get to PGE? Will they be allowed to use Richards (and travel through the existing old east Davis neighborhood); or will they simply commute to Sacramento via Mace Blvd.?
How will the cars get to PGE? Will they be allowed to use Richards (and travel through the existing old east Davis neighborhood); or will they simply commute to Sacramento via Mace Blvd.?
How will the cars get to PGE? Will they be allowed to use Richards (and travel through the existing old east Davis neighborhood); or will they simply commute to Sacramento via Mace Blvd.?
“You claim to not care about property values because you are sure when you sell it will be worth more than you paid. Isn’t that contradictory? If you really were unconcerned you would leave it to charity.”
Sorry, I guess you missed my point. I am sure that when I sell my house in 30 years it will be worth more than it is now regardless of whether there are developments from Davis to Dixon, Woodland and across the Yolo Bypass, so therefore when I evaluate my own NIMBY-ism increased property values do not factor in because I do not see the developments as a factor. My rationale still may not ring true to you, but I can’t help that. I will agree that if there are no more houses built in Davis, my property value will certainly rise, but I will not admit that it is one of my motivations for opposing peripheral housing developments.
“Of course once you got here, the size was X + 1.”
Actually, it was a zero sum because we replaced the people who moved away. Of course, when we had a baby it became X+1, but then shouldn’t we get credit for helping to prop up our declining school population??
“You claim to not care about property values because you are sure when you sell it will be worth more than you paid. Isn’t that contradictory? If you really were unconcerned you would leave it to charity.”
Sorry, I guess you missed my point. I am sure that when I sell my house in 30 years it will be worth more than it is now regardless of whether there are developments from Davis to Dixon, Woodland and across the Yolo Bypass, so therefore when I evaluate my own NIMBY-ism increased property values do not factor in because I do not see the developments as a factor. My rationale still may not ring true to you, but I can’t help that. I will agree that if there are no more houses built in Davis, my property value will certainly rise, but I will not admit that it is one of my motivations for opposing peripheral housing developments.
“Of course once you got here, the size was X + 1.”
Actually, it was a zero sum because we replaced the people who moved away. Of course, when we had a baby it became X+1, but then shouldn’t we get credit for helping to prop up our declining school population??
“You claim to not care about property values because you are sure when you sell it will be worth more than you paid. Isn’t that contradictory? If you really were unconcerned you would leave it to charity.”
Sorry, I guess you missed my point. I am sure that when I sell my house in 30 years it will be worth more than it is now regardless of whether there are developments from Davis to Dixon, Woodland and across the Yolo Bypass, so therefore when I evaluate my own NIMBY-ism increased property values do not factor in because I do not see the developments as a factor. My rationale still may not ring true to you, but I can’t help that. I will agree that if there are no more houses built in Davis, my property value will certainly rise, but I will not admit that it is one of my motivations for opposing peripheral housing developments.
“Of course once you got here, the size was X + 1.”
Actually, it was a zero sum because we replaced the people who moved away. Of course, when we had a baby it became X+1, but then shouldn’t we get credit for helping to prop up our declining school population??
“You claim to not care about property values because you are sure when you sell it will be worth more than you paid. Isn’t that contradictory? If you really were unconcerned you would leave it to charity.”
Sorry, I guess you missed my point. I am sure that when I sell my house in 30 years it will be worth more than it is now regardless of whether there are developments from Davis to Dixon, Woodland and across the Yolo Bypass, so therefore when I evaluate my own NIMBY-ism increased property values do not factor in because I do not see the developments as a factor. My rationale still may not ring true to you, but I can’t help that. I will agree that if there are no more houses built in Davis, my property value will certainly rise, but I will not admit that it is one of my motivations for opposing peripheral housing developments.
“Of course once you got here, the size was X + 1.”
Actually, it was a zero sum because we replaced the people who moved away. Of course, when we had a baby it became X+1, but then shouldn’t we get credit for helping to prop up our declining school population??
I agree with Sue Greenwald on the PG&E property. But, I also would like to hear her vision for the neighborhood in between the downtown and PG&E. Certainly, that would become a prime area for area for infill, scrape and rebuilds, and additions. Also, which streets would be identified as pedestrian, etc. thoroughfares to the downtown and would one of them need to be rezoned to allow commercial use?
I agree with Sue Greenwald on the PG&E property. But, I also would like to hear her vision for the neighborhood in between the downtown and PG&E. Certainly, that would become a prime area for area for infill, scrape and rebuilds, and additions. Also, which streets would be identified as pedestrian, etc. thoroughfares to the downtown and would one of them need to be rezoned to allow commercial use?
I agree with Sue Greenwald on the PG&E property. But, I also would like to hear her vision for the neighborhood in between the downtown and PG&E. Certainly, that would become a prime area for area for infill, scrape and rebuilds, and additions. Also, which streets would be identified as pedestrian, etc. thoroughfares to the downtown and would one of them need to be rezoned to allow commercial use?
I agree with Sue Greenwald on the PG&E property. But, I also would like to hear her vision for the neighborhood in between the downtown and PG&E. Certainly, that would become a prime area for area for infill, scrape and rebuilds, and additions. Also, which streets would be identified as pedestrian, etc. thoroughfares to the downtown and would one of them need to be rezoned to allow commercial use?
The HESC are to be congratulated on reaching a compromise position. If they can annoy both factions on the City Council, they must be doing something right.
However, I think they make a mistake in elevating sites such as PG&E to the top of the list without taking into account some business reality.
A housing development needs a landowner willing to sell, and a developer willing to buy it and invest the money needed to build and sell at a profit.
It's not clear to me that PG&E is willing to sell, or at what price. Further, there is no developer with cash in hand waiting to develop the property. Perhaps the City Council could play a role in brokering such a deal. But until that happens, unless the City starts really acting like a People's Republic and building housing with its own funds, this development is a fantasy.
Same with Sue G's dreams of a high-tech business park at the Cannery Site. For this to happen, you would need an office park developer AND potential tenants with real cash to spend, not hand-waving about "clean energy businesses."
City councils do not create developments. They facilitate them and can influence what happens and what doesn't. But both councillors and residents should stop indulging the idea that if they wish it, it will happen.
The HESC are to be congratulated on reaching a compromise position. If they can annoy both factions on the City Council, they must be doing something right.
However, I think they make a mistake in elevating sites such as PG&E to the top of the list without taking into account some business reality.
A housing development needs a landowner willing to sell, and a developer willing to buy it and invest the money needed to build and sell at a profit.
It's not clear to me that PG&E is willing to sell, or at what price. Further, there is no developer with cash in hand waiting to develop the property. Perhaps the City Council could play a role in brokering such a deal. But until that happens, unless the City starts really acting like a People's Republic and building housing with its own funds, this development is a fantasy.
Same with Sue G's dreams of a high-tech business park at the Cannery Site. For this to happen, you would need an office park developer AND potential tenants with real cash to spend, not hand-waving about "clean energy businesses."
City councils do not create developments. They facilitate them and can influence what happens and what doesn't. But both councillors and residents should stop indulging the idea that if they wish it, it will happen.
The HESC are to be congratulated on reaching a compromise position. If they can annoy both factions on the City Council, they must be doing something right.
However, I think they make a mistake in elevating sites such as PG&E to the top of the list without taking into account some business reality.
A housing development needs a landowner willing to sell, and a developer willing to buy it and invest the money needed to build and sell at a profit.
It's not clear to me that PG&E is willing to sell, or at what price. Further, there is no developer with cash in hand waiting to develop the property. Perhaps the City Council could play a role in brokering such a deal. But until that happens, unless the City starts really acting like a People's Republic and building housing with its own funds, this development is a fantasy.
Same with Sue G's dreams of a high-tech business park at the Cannery Site. For this to happen, you would need an office park developer AND potential tenants with real cash to spend, not hand-waving about "clean energy businesses."
City councils do not create developments. They facilitate them and can influence what happens and what doesn't. But both councillors and residents should stop indulging the idea that if they wish it, it will happen.
The HESC are to be congratulated on reaching a compromise position. If they can annoy both factions on the City Council, they must be doing something right.
However, I think they make a mistake in elevating sites such as PG&E to the top of the list without taking into account some business reality.
A housing development needs a landowner willing to sell, and a developer willing to buy it and invest the money needed to build and sell at a profit.
It's not clear to me that PG&E is willing to sell, or at what price. Further, there is no developer with cash in hand waiting to develop the property. Perhaps the City Council could play a role in brokering such a deal. But until that happens, unless the City starts really acting like a People's Republic and building housing with its own funds, this development is a fantasy.
Same with Sue G's dreams of a high-tech business park at the Cannery Site. For this to happen, you would need an office park developer AND potential tenants with real cash to spend, not hand-waving about "clean energy businesses."
City councils do not create developments. They facilitate them and can influence what happens and what doesn't. But both councillors and residents should stop indulging the idea that if they wish it, it will happen.
AndytheBritt and I have a fundamental difference of opinion here.
I believe that it is our job to actively solicit and negotiate for good development. In the case of Hunt-Wesson, we have our zoning powers. Lewis Homes is a very large Southern California subdivision developer. They bought industrially zoned land on speculation, to see whether they could obtain a rezone to build housing. They are unlikely to sit around paying property taxes and tying up their capital if the council makes it clear that we are serious about retaining our high-tech zoning for this parcel. They are likely to either work with us to develop a high-tech business park, or sell it to someone who will.
In terms of PG&E, we have every reason to believe that the company is interesting in making better use of this prime parcel.
Again, we can work with them to help relocate their operations and work together to produce a development plan which will give them a better rate of return on their property and help them contribute to a cutting edge, environmentally friendly development for which they could get a lot of credit.
We do not have to rely on developer-driven planning.
AndytheBritt and I have a fundamental difference of opinion here.
I believe that it is our job to actively solicit and negotiate for good development. In the case of Hunt-Wesson, we have our zoning powers. Lewis Homes is a very large Southern California subdivision developer. They bought industrially zoned land on speculation, to see whether they could obtain a rezone to build housing. They are unlikely to sit around paying property taxes and tying up their capital if the council makes it clear that we are serious about retaining our high-tech zoning for this parcel. They are likely to either work with us to develop a high-tech business park, or sell it to someone who will.
In terms of PG&E, we have every reason to believe that the company is interesting in making better use of this prime parcel.
Again, we can work with them to help relocate their operations and work together to produce a development plan which will give them a better rate of return on their property and help them contribute to a cutting edge, environmentally friendly development for which they could get a lot of credit.
We do not have to rely on developer-driven planning.
AndytheBritt and I have a fundamental difference of opinion here.
I believe that it is our job to actively solicit and negotiate for good development. In the case of Hunt-Wesson, we have our zoning powers. Lewis Homes is a very large Southern California subdivision developer. They bought industrially zoned land on speculation, to see whether they could obtain a rezone to build housing. They are unlikely to sit around paying property taxes and tying up their capital if the council makes it clear that we are serious about retaining our high-tech zoning for this parcel. They are likely to either work with us to develop a high-tech business park, or sell it to someone who will.
In terms of PG&E, we have every reason to believe that the company is interesting in making better use of this prime parcel.
Again, we can work with them to help relocate their operations and work together to produce a development plan which will give them a better rate of return on their property and help them contribute to a cutting edge, environmentally friendly development for which they could get a lot of credit.
We do not have to rely on developer-driven planning.
AndytheBritt and I have a fundamental difference of opinion here.
I believe that it is our job to actively solicit and negotiate for good development. In the case of Hunt-Wesson, we have our zoning powers. Lewis Homes is a very large Southern California subdivision developer. They bought industrially zoned land on speculation, to see whether they could obtain a rezone to build housing. They are unlikely to sit around paying property taxes and tying up their capital if the council makes it clear that we are serious about retaining our high-tech zoning for this parcel. They are likely to either work with us to develop a high-tech business park, or sell it to someone who will.
In terms of PG&E, we have every reason to believe that the company is interesting in making better use of this prime parcel.
Again, we can work with them to help relocate their operations and work together to produce a development plan which will give them a better rate of return on their property and help them contribute to a cutting edge, environmentally friendly development for which they could get a lot of credit.
We do not have to rely on developer-driven planning.
The Santa Monica city council( a progressive majority group for some time now) takes the approach that Sue has outlined. THEY set the agenda and the rules(financial benefit to the city) for the developers, not the other way around.
The Santa Monica city council( a progressive majority group for some time now) takes the approach that Sue has outlined. THEY set the agenda and the rules(financial benefit to the city) for the developers, not the other way around.
The Santa Monica city council( a progressive majority group for some time now) takes the approach that Sue has outlined. THEY set the agenda and the rules(financial benefit to the city) for the developers, not the other way around.
The Santa Monica city council( a progressive majority group for some time now) takes the approach that Sue has outlined. THEY set the agenda and the rules(financial benefit to the city) for the developers, not the other way around.
I am totally with Sue on Hunt Wesson. The City has to say NO to residential there, and actively work with the landowner to get some commercial activity and development on the site.
Residential on that H-W site is madness. (Eileen, adding some housing there will not slow down the next “Halloween 4” from Covell Village.)
Hey, who is going to pay for the 4th Fire Station? Anyone demanding that H-W pay for their very negative impact on the 5-minute response time problem that now exists? (Answer: NO.)
If I lived north of Covell, I would sit in the street and stop traffic before I would allow a significant new development of housing north of Covell without a solution to the 5-minute problem.
The response times now are 8-10 minutes, far outside of any basic public safety requirements followed around the country.
The 5 minute rule was developed because the medics have to get to the patient not later than that time to prevent brain damage when the heart fails.
Eileen: dont give H-W a free ride on the fire and police services! And you are just opening up Covell Village, as they will say “Oh, look, some nice housing coming in and touching our western border … let’s just do a joint master plan and get it all done at once!”
I am totally with Sue on Hunt Wesson. The City has to say NO to residential there, and actively work with the landowner to get some commercial activity and development on the site.
Residential on that H-W site is madness. (Eileen, adding some housing there will not slow down the next “Halloween 4” from Covell Village.)
Hey, who is going to pay for the 4th Fire Station? Anyone demanding that H-W pay for their very negative impact on the 5-minute response time problem that now exists? (Answer: NO.)
If I lived north of Covell, I would sit in the street and stop traffic before I would allow a significant new development of housing north of Covell without a solution to the 5-minute problem.
The response times now are 8-10 minutes, far outside of any basic public safety requirements followed around the country.
The 5 minute rule was developed because the medics have to get to the patient not later than that time to prevent brain damage when the heart fails.
Eileen: dont give H-W a free ride on the fire and police services! And you are just opening up Covell Village, as they will say “Oh, look, some nice housing coming in and touching our western border … let’s just do a joint master plan and get it all done at once!”
I am totally with Sue on Hunt Wesson. The City has to say NO to residential there, and actively work with the landowner to get some commercial activity and development on the site.
Residential on that H-W site is madness. (Eileen, adding some housing there will not slow down the next “Halloween 4” from Covell Village.)
Hey, who is going to pay for the 4th Fire Station? Anyone demanding that H-W pay for their very negative impact on the 5-minute response time problem that now exists? (Answer: NO.)
If I lived north of Covell, I would sit in the street and stop traffic before I would allow a significant new development of housing north of Covell without a solution to the 5-minute problem.
The response times now are 8-10 minutes, far outside of any basic public safety requirements followed around the country.
The 5 minute rule was developed because the medics have to get to the patient not later than that time to prevent brain damage when the heart fails.
Eileen: dont give H-W a free ride on the fire and police services! And you are just opening up Covell Village, as they will say “Oh, look, some nice housing coming in and touching our western border … let’s just do a joint master plan and get it all done at once!”
I am totally with Sue on Hunt Wesson. The City has to say NO to residential there, and actively work with the landowner to get some commercial activity and development on the site.
Residential on that H-W site is madness. (Eileen, adding some housing there will not slow down the next “Halloween 4” from Covell Village.)
Hey, who is going to pay for the 4th Fire Station? Anyone demanding that H-W pay for their very negative impact on the 5-minute response time problem that now exists? (Answer: NO.)
If I lived north of Covell, I would sit in the street and stop traffic before I would allow a significant new development of housing north of Covell without a solution to the 5-minute problem.
The response times now are 8-10 minutes, far outside of any basic public safety requirements followed around the country.
The 5 minute rule was developed because the medics have to get to the patient not later than that time to prevent brain damage when the heart fails.
Eileen: dont give H-W a free ride on the fire and police services! And you are just opening up Covell Village, as they will say “Oh, look, some nice housing coming in and touching our western border … let’s just do a joint master plan and get it all done at once!”
Sue, I agree we don’t want development that is driven solely by developers. But you can’t have development without developers ready to invest funds in projects.
The main point I am trying to make is, the City should not put off good projects where a developer is willing to start work, because you would rather develop other sites even though the current occupants show little serious interest in selling and there is no investor ready to go.
I just don’t see business clamoring to set up in the Cannery site. There is already a lot of built business space available along Second St and I-80, with much better freeway access.
The university has had its own experience with a research park, literally off I-80, that has never come to pass because they could not find anchor tenants. If UCD could not get that built right on the edge of campus and I-80, I think it’s going to be very difficult to build a large office/research park on the other side of town.
It’s all very well to have nice ideas, but they have to match some commercial reality of what businesses actually want to do.
Sue, I agree we don’t want development that is driven solely by developers. But you can’t have development without developers ready to invest funds in projects.
The main point I am trying to make is, the City should not put off good projects where a developer is willing to start work, because you would rather develop other sites even though the current occupants show little serious interest in selling and there is no investor ready to go.
I just don’t see business clamoring to set up in the Cannery site. There is already a lot of built business space available along Second St and I-80, with much better freeway access.
The university has had its own experience with a research park, literally off I-80, that has never come to pass because they could not find anchor tenants. If UCD could not get that built right on the edge of campus and I-80, I think it’s going to be very difficult to build a large office/research park on the other side of town.
It’s all very well to have nice ideas, but they have to match some commercial reality of what businesses actually want to do.
Sue, I agree we don’t want development that is driven solely by developers. But you can’t have development without developers ready to invest funds in projects.
The main point I am trying to make is, the City should not put off good projects where a developer is willing to start work, because you would rather develop other sites even though the current occupants show little serious interest in selling and there is no investor ready to go.
I just don’t see business clamoring to set up in the Cannery site. There is already a lot of built business space available along Second St and I-80, with much better freeway access.
The university has had its own experience with a research park, literally off I-80, that has never come to pass because they could not find anchor tenants. If UCD could not get that built right on the edge of campus and I-80, I think it’s going to be very difficult to build a large office/research park on the other side of town.
It’s all very well to have nice ideas, but they have to match some commercial reality of what businesses actually want to do.
Sue, I agree we don’t want development that is driven solely by developers. But you can’t have development without developers ready to invest funds in projects.
The main point I am trying to make is, the City should not put off good projects where a developer is willing to start work, because you would rather develop other sites even though the current occupants show little serious interest in selling and there is no investor ready to go.
I just don’t see business clamoring to set up in the Cannery site. There is already a lot of built business space available along Second St and I-80, with much better freeway access.
The university has had its own experience with a research park, literally off I-80, that has never come to pass because they could not find anchor tenants. If UCD could not get that built right on the edge of campus and I-80, I think it’s going to be very difficult to build a large office/research park on the other side of town.
It’s all very well to have nice ideas, but they have to match some commercial reality of what businesses actually want to do.
‘But you can’t have development without developers ready to invest funds in projects…..”
This is always a game of Who Blinks First between a city’s plans and developer profits. Remember when the insurance industry threatened to leave CA because they couldn’t make money under the Insurance Commissioner’s control. They’re still here because there’s money to be made, although not as much as if having left them to their own devices. Developers will do whatever project the city decides to promote, if there is money to be made..just perhaps not the amount that residential development brings.
‘But you can’t have development without developers ready to invest funds in projects…..”
This is always a game of Who Blinks First between a city’s plans and developer profits. Remember when the insurance industry threatened to leave CA because they couldn’t make money under the Insurance Commissioner’s control. They’re still here because there’s money to be made, although not as much as if having left them to their own devices. Developers will do whatever project the city decides to promote, if there is money to be made..just perhaps not the amount that residential development brings.
‘But you can’t have development without developers ready to invest funds in projects…..”
This is always a game of Who Blinks First between a city’s plans and developer profits. Remember when the insurance industry threatened to leave CA because they couldn’t make money under the Insurance Commissioner’s control. They’re still here because there’s money to be made, although not as much as if having left them to their own devices. Developers will do whatever project the city decides to promote, if there is money to be made..just perhaps not the amount that residential development brings.
‘But you can’t have development without developers ready to invest funds in projects…..”
This is always a game of Who Blinks First between a city’s plans and developer profits. Remember when the insurance industry threatened to leave CA because they couldn’t make money under the Insurance Commissioner’s control. They’re still here because there’s money to be made, although not as much as if having left them to their own devices. Developers will do whatever project the city decides to promote, if there is money to be made..just perhaps not the amount that residential development brings.
DPD often contradicts himself. But is is good that dpd, on rare occassion, will admit it.
DPD often contradicts himself. But is is good that dpd, on rare occassion, will admit it.
DPD often contradicts himself. But is is good that dpd, on rare occassion, will admit it.
DPD often contradicts himself. But is is good that dpd, on rare occassion, will admit it.