As one of the city staffers suggested, there are subtle but substantive changes. However, from what we see, the core project by-and-large remains the same, a 98.4 acre in-fill development with 600 units.
It is not that this will be an easy task for ConAgra, exhibited by the fact that some have actually argued that the 20-acres business park proposed on the site is too large while others argue it should be larger.
The project will be 610 housing units, broken down now by 88 low density residential units, 205 medium density, 228 high density, and 89 mixed use. That marks a slight increase in the number of low density units and a slight decrease in the number of medium density units.
One of the key features changed is that they have moved the park from the periphery to the center of the project. They have shrunk its size but increased the overall open space component. They have also added a wider ag buffer on the eastern edge of the property.
Finally, they have attempted to put some housing and retail on the eastern entrance so that people do not have to feel like they are driving through a business park to get to their homes.
But all of these are, of course, changes at the margins.
They have now lost two additional acres of commercial land. Remember, this is the largest land that is currently zoned for industrial use. That component has shrunk now from 100 acres down to 18. They still are calling this the “Gateway to the Cannery Park neighborhood.”
They have expanded the open space, so now 29 acres are dedicated open space, including a greenbelt, buffer, and a 4.8-acre park. They call this the backbone of the community, arguing that they focus on accessibility and linkage of the open space system with shared uses, enabling efficient land use and continuity of open space. The “Green backbone is the primary organizing element of the Cannery Park land plan,” they claim.
They have four primary street sections and they focus on separating pedestrians and bicycles from vehicular traffic. They have a main entrance which is off of J Street. They have a secondary entrance that some people believe is actually in the middle of the overpass which would be a right turn in, right turn out only.
What is interesting is a proposal for an emergency vehicle access up in the northwestern portion of the property, which proposes an at-grade crossing at the tracks. I asked city staff how they would manage to get an at-grade crossing, and they cryptically suggested that ConAgra resides down the street from Union Pacific in Omaha.
They argue that it is a pedestrian and bicycle friendly circulation system. They spoke of Smart Street Designs, and that the City of Davis is actually outdated on their street plans. The circulation system is built at a pedestrian scale, where distances are short enough to walk or bike. The destinations are interconnected by continuous, safe and convenient paths.
They also pointed out their connections to downtown Davis, which is roughly a mile from the entrance of the development, but the development itself is half a mile in length, north to south.
They argue it is a mile from downtown, within one mile of 10 parks, half a mile from five public schools, one mile from two major shopping centers, and a mile to UC Davis and Amtrak. It will have ready access to public transportation, with 9 stops on four bus lines.
A key component, they argue, is their sustainability component. They claim it has 14.6 acres of open space dedicated to Agricultural Buffer, with joint use seasonal drainage. They plan on planting over 300 trees on Collector and Residential streets alone.
For greenhouse gas, they argue that they can sequester 2.6 tons of CO2 per acre of trees planted per year. In Cannery, they propose 20 acres of canopy which equates to 52.8 tons of CO2 per year. They will reduce turf areas to eliminate 75 percent of typical green waste and plan for the possibility of 6 to 8 acres of market-based urban agriculture on the eastern Ag buffer.
They sell their bike trials and proximity for transit riders, but fail to point out that none of the stops are in the development, so anyone taking the bus would have to walk to the bus stop which may be quarter of a mile from the entrance to the development, but not from people’s homes.
Once again, they talk about smart street design and the reduction of 758 tons of asphalt, reduction of water runoff and the reduction of water use in public areas.
They also talk about installing photovoltaic, with the potential to generate 5500 kilowatts per year, saving 1.43 tons of CO2 per year. They talk about generating 2,230,000 kilowatts per year on their commercial rooftops, saving 531 tons of CO2, and 2680 kilowatts per year on their parking shade structures, saving another .64 tons per year.
Commentary
First of all, we note that in response to a lot of questions they noted that they do not have a plan yet, they simply have a design. So they have, for instance, not designed a park. Well, it seems logical that before they really present a project they need to do just that.
Second, this is just a standard housing development with some mixed-use up front. There is nothing particularly special about it. This development is nothing that we do not already have in this community.
Given the lack of real estate market, the fact that we have thousands of units either waiting to be sold or entitled but not built, it does not seem logical to develop 610 units now. In the meantime, we ought to hold out for something better, something special.
There is, to be blunt, no “wow” factor, but there are a lot of “ugh-factors” in this project.
First of all, we should be shooting, with all projects, to produce Village Homes II. Something innovative and sustainable, that will be regionally noteworthy. We have a Climate Action Plan, but really we need to aim at 90% carbon reduction. And really higher than that, given the amount of open space. They did not put a number of their carbon reduction plan. Wildhorse Ranch and West Village should be the baseline sustainability components of new developments.
There was no discussion about passive design features utilizing the sun, gaining passive exposure in the winter and avoiding it in the summer, orienting the homes to take advantage of the Delta Breeze with cross-ventilation. There was no talk about energy efficient homes.
Frankly the sustainability portion seemed more like lip-service rather than a core portion of the project. They seemed to add it to appease demands, rather than out of some belief in the actual creation of a sustainable community.
This is a huge step back from either Wildhorse Ranch or West Village.
I am concerned that they keep cutting back on the business park component. It has dropped now from 100 acres to 20 and now 18 acres. I am sure ConAgra wants that number to be zero so they can go up to 800 or 1000 units.
It does not help that someone from audience was complaining that the business park was too large and that we already have business in the downtown. Apparently, that individual has missed all of the community meetings and discussions about the need to put business parks on the periphery to bring in new business.
Choices for Healthy Aging made a big scene yesterday, and they have gotten ConAgra to add a portion to the development which might be usable for senior housing, but the bottom line is that we need to use universal design as our baseline feature of all new developments.
We need to aim for 100% visitibility and adaptability, with the goal of achieving a high rate of accessibility.
Unlike CHA, I do not favor a huge seniors-only project with amenities and services. But we ought to do better than what we have.
As I noted earlier, there is a lot of talk about access to the bus lines, but their actual plan does not have bus stops inside the development, which makes it problematic for aged populations and disabled populations.
There was little discussion of what the affordability component looks like. They have not finalized with the city even a land dedication for the affordable component. There needs to be much more discussion about what these units figure to sell for. Right now, with the huge numbers of medium and low density homes in the project, we have to figure that a huge number of the homes are going to be in the $500,000 range and above.
This is not all the fault of ConAgra. Obviously, city staff is telling them this is all right. I think Council needs to come in and lay down the hammer here. They need to tell ConAgra what a development in Davis needs to look like in terms of carbon reduction, sustainability, innovation, affordability, housing size, and the like.
I am generally opposed to the idea of developing this property as housing at this time. But if this does become a housing development, we need it to be a good housing development that moves us forward. This is a non-starter. They have tweaked the project on the edges when they really need to tear it down and start from scratch.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]..ConAgra resides down the street from Union Pacific in Omaha.[/i]
The very first thing the original developers did was destroy any possibility of using the existing rail line and tanks. Just goes to show there’s no cure for stupid.
David
sorry I couldn’t make the mtg. What is city staff’s take on thiis project? Did they tip their hand? It would probably keep the excess number of that dept’s staff busy for sone time.
The citizens of Davis don’t want this or need it at this time. It’s zoned for light industrial and that’s what it should be utilized for.
Conagra has truly wrecked a really decent opportunity for create reuse of the old facility, torn out their railroad spur and wasted a lot of time with a dumb plan. Next!
1) The one question I asked last night was: “Let’s talk about the 610 elephant in the room. What has the developer done to make sure this a NFID – a no fiscal impact development? UCD has just announced 450 proposed employee layoffs. The school district is talking about laying off 45-60 teachers. The housing market is abysmal. New residential housing projects require additional city services. Yet the city cannot pay for the services it now provides to citizens who are already here. How is the developer going to make sure that the impact of this new development is not going to be a net fiscal negative to the city?”
City staff’s answer: “That is a great question… we will be exploring these issues and bringing them to the Budget and Finance Commission for discussion.” It would seem to me this issue should have already been considered above all else.
2) According to city staff, apparently Citizens for Healthy Aging (CHA) is pushing for 80% of this development to be set aside for age restricted senior housing w amenities, if I heard correctly. I have to admit the figure was so startling, I almost cannot believe what I heard.
3) Someone in the audience asked about rental housing. The developers hedges, said they hadn’t really formulated exact plans yet, then conceded the vision for this project is essentially home ownership.
4) Nothing was said by the developers about a previous expressed concern that a zoning change from light industrial to residential would take out the only large parcel left inside the city limits to develop a high-tech business park. City staff made it clear, that as a result of turning the Cannery property into mostly residential, econonic development will instead be pushed to the periphery of Davis outside the city limits. In fact, as dmg notes, the business park aspect of the Cannery has shrunken to virtually nonexistent, and is essentially envisioned as a business/residential loft concept, which would accommodate small coffee shops/retail, but not high-tech business even though there was a disingenuous claim that high-tech business could be accommodated.
5) For many, any reference to Village Homes as a shining example causes a cringing reaction. If anyone has visited Village Homes lately, many parts of it look very seedy and rundown. Additionally, often residents of Village Homes don’t like outsiders visiting. I myself, when I have gone on walks, have been asked by homeowners if I actually live there, w the implication that if I don’t reside in Village Homes, I should not be walking anywhere inside there. I’m sure not all residents feel that way, but obviously some are very proprietary of their neighborhood for some reason.
6) The talk of developing HOAs inside the Cannery made me wince. HOAs can be the subject of some of the grossist violations of human rights you will ever want to see in this country, e.g. being fined $200 if you say something to your neighbor in private that the Board of Directors doesn’t like; foreclosure on homes of people the Board doesn’t like. I know, bc as an attonrey I have been involved in many HOA cases of this sort, many right here in Yolo County. Be careful what you wish for when instituting an HOA. It is extremely important that the governing documents are very, very carefully drafted, and even then vicious abuses abound depending on who is elected to the Board.
7) Why this plan for expensive residential housing now, when there is no need for such development in light of the current dire housing market (not to mention a huge # of housing projects that have already been approved but remain as yet unbuilt), but there is a desperate need for economic development in light of Chancellor Katahi’s statements that either Davis begins cooperating or will miss out on economic development partnerships w UCD startups?
Elaine, the 80% CHA set aside goal doesn’t surprise me. It does have consequences though. My suspicion is that the City’s cost of services is higher for the residents of senior housing than it is for non-senior residents. Do you have any information on that subject?
Thanks for asking the NFID question. I too wanted to ask that question, but felt I’d already reached my quota of one question for the night given the very active audience hand raising during the Q&A period.
On the subject of the question I asked, the site is very different (and significantly better as a neighbor to the current Davis residents adjacent to the site) if the California Northern railroad tracks along F Street get relocated to a route well outside the City limits. I had hoped that ConAgra would be more proactively aware of the Yolo Regional Freight Rail Improvement Project which would eliminate the tracks going north through Davis, all five at-grade crossings (at 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 8th Streets), and open approximately 11 acres of downtown Davis for infill development. A January 2011 letter and report regarding this project is available at [url]deltacouncil.ca.gov/docs/correspondence/1_2011/…/SNR_013111.pdf[/url]
MW: “Elaine, the 80% CHA set aside goal doesn’t surprise me. It does have consequences though. My suspicion is that the City’s cost of services is higher for the residents of senior housing than it is for non-senior residents. Do you have any information on that subject?”
The importation of low income seniors in particular from outside the city – something that cannot be controlled and would have to almost assuredly occur with the affordable housing requirements in Davis – would put an extra burden on county social services to an extreme degree. Additionally, most likely local city transit options for the low income disabled would have to be increased, disabled transit options that are already overtaxed to the limit. Worse yet, seniors on fixed incomes currently living in Davis would be severely impacted if there is a net fiscal negative to the city bc of the addition of 610 new homes, if any tax increases or increases in burdens on current services occur.
I agree with Elaine that the fiscal impact should be first and foremost.
And the sustainability, workforce housing and fiscal neutrality issues work against eachother. Making housing truly low carbon impact adds a tremendous amount to the cost (and unlike WHR we ought to be looking at LEED or some standard to ensure the project meets these goals). The expense here means a developer will be less able to pay upfront fees. So that means you need to make more expensive homes–which contradicts the workforce housing aspect–and these homes would probably be bigger which also makes it harder to argue the homes are sustainable.
WE don’t need more housing now IMHO and most Davis voters agree with that sentiment. Someday we may. THis site is better than CV or WHR in that it is a brownfield and closer to downtown. But it also is the only chunk of land where we could put a campus-style business park as opposed to the commercial office business parks which litter the central valley (e.g., Rocklin has a 31% office vacancy rate!).
ConAgra’s approach seems to be shoot first and ask questions later. This plan looks half-baked at best. We deserve better. As Rich Rifkin remarked yesterday its a low cost strategy for ConAgra. But is it low cost for our community?
1)Myth buster: The ConAgra property is NOT zoned light industrial. It’s zoned industrial. Manufacturing, processing, and research are the permitted uses.
2)The NFID question was a good one. I noticed that the seniors advocates were not at all interested in the answer. They seemed to have only their own narrow interest in mind. Does that mean the seniors would support the project even if it was a net fiscal loser so long as the project met their design criteria? I’d be interested in hearing their perspective.
3)The Nishi property, as far as a business park or mixed-use development, is in the Core or immediately adjacent thereto depending on one’s perspective. It’s certainly not on the periphery. I realize I’ve been repetitious of late, but this fact seems to be overlooked in these debates.
4)It is likely that there will be tremendous resistance from the downtown business community and any sustainable/smart growth proponents if the commercial component is increased. The 120,000 sq. ft. of commercial space currently planned for is going to require some very careful handling by City staff as it is. I understand staff’s stated objectives. It’ll be interesting to see what steps they will take to protect against negative, unintended consequences.
Regarding my item 4) posted just moments ago, I’d like to clarify that I’m still open minded regarding this aspect. But I’m likely to revert to my normal state of closed mindedness quite soon.
We don’t need this project at this time, shelf it and come back in 3 to 4 years when hopefully the economy and housing are better.
[quote]Myth buster: The ConAgra property is NOT zoned light industrial. It’s zoned industrial. Manufacturing, processing, and research are the permitted uses.— DT Businessman1[/quote] [b]Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.[/b] The Con-Agra is very carefully zoned to be a neighborhood-compatible high tech business park, with other neighborhood-compatible conditional uses.[quote]It is likely that there will be tremendous resistance from the downtown business community and any sustainable/smart growth proponents if the commercial component is increased.— DT Businessman[/quote]So you would prefer a high-tech business park on the periphery near 113 in the Northwest Quadrant or I-80 near Mace Ranch which is larger, further from the downtown and has ultimately has potential for freeway oriented big-box retail malls? Because that is what the council is currently looking at.
The city retains 24% of the property tax on the Con-Agra, and 100% of the sales tax if we were lucky enough to be designated as point-of-sales for a high-tech company. The peripheral sites (and even Nishi) would require a negotiated tax split with the county. The last time we annexed land was with the Wildhorse subdivision, and we received 6% of the property tax. The county is now going after some of the sales tax as well.
Sue, are you willfully ignoring my comment #4?
RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. Sue, I raise your boldfaced type will all caps. You were an “aye” vote on the ordinance. Good call on approving “Sex oriented entertainment businesses”. I crack myself up. The permitted uses are as follows:
A.Permitted Uses. The principal permitted uses of land in this district are as follows:
i.Agriculture, except the raising of animals or fowl for commercial purposes, or the sale of any products at retail on the premises;
ii.Agricultural food processing;
iii.Research, development, design, or testing laboratories and facilities, such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, computer software, fiber optics, robotics, satellite technologies, or similar uses, provided that such uses do not produce odor, smoke, noise, or other objectionable effects that are inconsistent with performance standards in Section 40.024.010 to 40.024.080 of the Zoning Ordinance.
iv.Assembly and manufacturing of electronic equipment, devices and systems, such as computer hardware, telecommunications equipment, or similar high technology uses, provided that such uses do not produce odor, smoke, noise, or other objectionable effects that are inconsistent with performance standards in Section 40.024.010 to 40.024.080 of the Zoning Ordinance.
v.Industrial uses involving research, development or manufacturing of products that promote a sustainable environment, such as research and production of photovoltaic devices and other similar solar equipment, alternative fueled vehicles, research and testing; development and production of other products that promote energy efficient uses; and similar uses that do not produce odors, smoke, noise or other objectionable effects that are inconsistent with performance standards in Section 40.024.010 to 40.024.080 of the Zoning Ordinance.
vi.Sex oriented entertainment businesses, subject to the requirements of Section 40.26.410 of the Zoning Ordinance.
[quote]”The ConAgra property is NOT zoned light industrial. It’s zoned industrial.”
“[b]Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.[/b]”
“RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.”[/quote] How long will it take someone verify the true zoning and permitted uses on this property?
DT Businessman: [quote]provided that such uses do not produce odor, smoke, noise, or other objectionable effects that are inconsistent with performance standards in Section 40.024.010 to 40.024.080 of the Zoning Ordinance.[/quote]Sounds neighborhood compatible to me. Plus you conveniently left out the performance standards, which reinforce the neighborhood compatibility.
The sex business clause was put in to satisfy constitutional requirements. It was considered a technicality. I believe it is also the Mace Ranch industrial area, and we certainly haven’t seen this “industry” flourish. It could probably be taken out; I would have to speak with Harriet about that.
Maybe David could post the entire zoning for the area. Again, the zoning is carefully worded to assure a neighborhood-compatible business park.
Sue, thanks, but now I’m more confused about the facts.
Are you really stating Mr. Business is “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong….” in his contention that “the ConAgra property is NOT zoned light industrial. It’s zoned industrial….”?
Or, are you saying that he’s “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong….” in claiming that “manufacturing, processing, and research are the permitted uses” for whatever the true zoning is for this property? Or both?
Also, please provide a little more about what “neighborhood compatible” means. Is some designated category of industrial or light-industrial zoning? Is it just a general objective to assure that infill projects are designed to be similar to and compliment their surrounding development?
Does the present zoning require that the property only be developed as the “neighborhood-compatible business park” as you suggest?
Thanks for participating in this discussion.
JustSaying: [i]”How long will it take someone verify the true zoning and permitted uses on this property?”[/i]
Look at Page 1 of this 4 page document ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cannerypark/pdfs/docs/Applicant-Project-Description-Updated-20101004.pdf[/url]): [quote]Currently the land proposed for development as Cannery Park is zoned PD‐1‐00 (Planned Development‐Industrial) per the General Plan.[/quote] I don’t know what source DTB has for the “permitted uses” he lists at 1:03 pm. However, according to Code 40.20.020 Permitted uses ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/printsection.cfm?chapter=40§ion=20[/url]), they are the following: [quote] (a)Any manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale or storage uses, except as hereinafter modified, or modified in section 40.20.040.
(b)Any manufacturing, processing, assembling use which is not of the character of the uses listed in section 40.20.040 as subject to review in conformance with the performance standards procedure set forth in sections 40.24.010 to 40.24.080 may be permitted without such review; provided, that any proposed use may be required to comply with such procedure if it is considered possible by the planning commission that such use may violate such performance standards.
(c)Railroad yards and freight stations, and trucking and motor freight stations, and public utility substations and service yards.
(d)Agriculture, except the raising of animals or fowl for commercial purposes, or the sale of any products at retail on the premises.
(e)Sex oriented entertainment businesses, subject to the requirements of section 40.26.410. (Ord. No. 296, § 20.2; Ord. No. 1377, § 5; Ord. No. 1735, § 3.)[/quote]
It’s possible the staff report which says the land is zoned industrial is wrong. There is a different zoning category called “industrial research.” Here are the permitted uses for “industrial research districts”:
(a)Administrative, executive and financial offices.
(b)Laboratories: experimental, film or testing.
(c)Manufacturing, assembly or packaging of products from previously prepared materials, such as cloth, plastic, paper, leather or semiprecious metals or stones, but not including such operations as saw
and planing mills, any manufacturing uses involving primary production of wood, metal or chemical products from raw materials.
(d)Manufacture of electric and electronic instruments and devices, such as television, radio and phonograph equipment.
(e)Manufacture of food products, pharmaceuticals and the like, but not including production of fish or meat products, sauerkraut, vinegar or the like, or the rendering or refining of fats and oils.
(f)Planned unit developments, subject to the provisions of sections 40.32.010 to 40.32.110.
(g)Any other research or light manufacturing use determined by the planning commission to be of the same general character as the permitted uses.
(h)Agriculture, except the raising of fowls or animals for commercial purposes, or the sale of any products at retail on the premises.
(i)Sex oriented entertainment businesses, subject to the requirements of section 40.26.410. (Ord. No. 296, § 19.2; Ord. No. 756, § 1; Ord. No. 1377, § 3; Ord. No. 1735, § 2.)
SUE G. [i]” The Con-Agra is very carefully [b]zoned[/b] to be a neighborhood-compatible high tech business park, with other neighborhood-compatible conditional uses.”[/i]
If that is true, it is not reflected anywhere in the Zoning Code ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/printchapter.cfm?chapter=40[/url]). There is no mention of high tech business parks or anything similar.
However, there is this document ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20080922/Cannery_Park_Viability_Study.pdf[/url]), which is titled:
[b]Business Park Viability Study: Cannery Park, Davis. Prepared by
ESG. September 4, 2008.[/b]
Perhaps it was adopted by the council. If so, no one ever changed the Zoning Code to reflect that.
Who am I to violate the constitution? Sue, your selected quote does not pertain to i), ii), or vi) of the zoning ordinance. The farming, ag processing, and sex can be as loud and smelly as they want.
The big diffence in permitted uses between light industrial zoning and industrial is office and admin use. A significant portion of the light imdustrial space in Davis is occupied by office users. Office/admin use is currently not a permitted use on the ConAgra site.
RR, I’ve been citing ORDINANCE NO. 2040, introduced 10/11/00 and passed 11/1/00.
DTB: [i]”RR, I’ve been citing ORDINANCE NO. 2040, introduced 10/11/00 and passed 11/1/00.”[/i]
It’s likely that you are correct that 2040 has play here. I must be ignorant about the zoning for the Hunt Wesson site.
However, I should note that Ord. No. 2040 is never once mentioned in our current 239 page Zoning Code ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/printchapter.cfm?chapter=40[/url]). It also garners no mention in the section of the code 40.19.0 for an INDUSTRIAL ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH (I-R) DISTRICT ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/printsection.cfm?chapter=40§ion=19[/url]). As far as I can tell, there is no mention of Ord. No. 2040 anywhere in any section of the Davis Municipal Code ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/[/url]).
In the City of Davis General Plan December 2007 section titled “Chapter 1. Land Use and Growth Management ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/CDD/GP/004-01-Land-Use-and-growth-Managment.pdf[/url]),” there is no mention of that ordinance or anything like it.
It’s possible that it is mentioned somewhere else in the General Plan documents ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/CDD/GP/index.cfm[/url]), but I could not find it anywhere.
RR, the city zoning atlas has the property zoned as P-D 1-00. I asked staff for a copy of the P-D yesterdy. Ordinance No. 2040 is what staff sent me. SG asked that DG link or post the ordinance, so I emailed the ordinance to DG yesterday evening. That’s all I know.
DTB, I understand that. I just cannot see an official explanation of what specifically it means.
A City Staff report on the site ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cannerypark/pdfs/docs/Applicant-Project-Description-Updated-20101004.pdf[/url]) notes: [quote] Currently the land proposed for development as Cannery Park is zoned [b]PD‐1‐00[/b] (Planned Development‐Industrial) per the General Plan.[/quote] I should add that nowhere in the General Plan or in any other city docs available on-line is there a description or explanation of PD-1-00, other than here ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/CDD/Business_Park_Land_Strategy/pdfs/Final Business Park land Strategy Site Evaluations 10-27-10.pdf[/url]), which simply says its “Land Use Designation” is “industrial” (see page 3 of 59).
Moreover, on my copy of the City zoning map (which may be out of date, but was published long after that 2000 ordinance was adopted), there is no reference I can see to PD-1-00. Further, there is no mention in any of these available documents of a “high-tech business park” or anything like that for the cannery site. (I concede it’s possible that these documents exist, but no one ever put them on the City’s website or elsewhere on-line.)
The single mention of the “tech sector” for this site in any city documents comes from this October, 2010 staff report ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cannerypark/pdfs/docs/staff-reports/staff-report-20101026.pdf[/url]):
[i]”On December 2, 2008 the City Council, by a vote of 4 to 1, directed staff to process the Cannery Park Project proposal, submitted by Lewis Planned Communities. Specifically, the council directed staff to undertake the following: … [b]c)[/b] Initiate City sponsored public outreach efforts with focus on the immediate neighborhood; and discussions with UCD and representatives in [b]the tech sector[/b] regarding future business park land needs.”[/i]
Note that this direction from the City Council never changed anything with regard to the zoning on that site as a “high-tech business park.” It simply asked for discussions about that possibility.
“Initiate City sponsored public outreach efforts with focus on the immediate neighborhood; and discussions with UCD and representatives in the tech sector regarding future business park land needs.”
Thanks Rich and Sue for the clarification.
DTB: “2)The NFID question was a good one. I noticed that the seniors advocates were not at all interested in the answer. They seemed to have only their own narrow interest in mind. Does that mean the seniors would support the project even if it was a net fiscal loser so long as the project met their design criteria? I’d be interested in hearing their perspective.
The senior advocates speaking out at the Cannery meeting the other night DO NOT REPRESENT ALL/MOST SENIORS. They were members/reps/friends of CHA, who have a particular point of view as to what senior housing should look like in Davis. It does not necessarily reflect what Davis seniors want however. Being extremely vocal does not equal speaking for the majority…
4)It is likely that there will be tremendous resistance from the downtown business community and any sustainable/smart growth proponents if the commercial component is increased. The 120,000 sq. ft. of commercial space currently planned for is going to require some very careful handling by City staff as it is. I understand staff’s stated objectives. It’ll be interesting to see what steps they will take to protect against negative, unintended consequences.
Please explain why the downtown business community would be against a high tech park at the Cannery site?
ERM, I’d be happy to explain, but my explanation would depend on how you define “high tech park”. Please note that I never used that term, nor does ConAgra, nor does staff, nor does the zoning.
ERM, you’ve atually put your finger on a significant issue. Terms are bandied about in these business park discussions without realizing the ramifications of a “high tech park”, versus a “business park”, versus a “light industrial” property, versus a “mixed use” property, versus an “industrial” property”. The last property type would have very little ramification for the downtown. All of the remaining property types potentially could have significant ramifications for the downtown
The Vanguard bloggers frequently state that the ConAgra property is zoned for business park development, such is not the case. I’m fairly certain the property would have to be rezoned to develop a business park on the site. SG, seems to have a contrary view. Fine, let her prove it.
Mr. Businessman, Rich pointed out that this staff report states “Cannery Park” is zoned PD‐1‐00 (Planned Development‐Industrial) per the General Plan. This seems closer to your description (zoned “industrial”) than “light industrial” does. On the other hand, Sue wrote that you’re wrong and Rich raised the possibility that the staff report could be wrong.
Somehow, I thought there must be a quick and definitive way to verify the current official zoning for this property. And that all of you would promptly and publicly agree on the true answer. Are we any closer to that desirable state?
l hope Sue will rejoin us and help with the questions I asked of her once she gets rested up from this morning’s exhausting council meeting….
JustSaying, I already posted the permitted uses and I emailed the entire ordinance to DG for him to either post or link. I don’t know what else I can do at this point.