Every Friday between now and the election, the candidates for Davis City Council will be asked to respond to one hard-hitting Vanguard question on the issues that matter to Davis, or at least to the Vanguard.
Last week the council candidates were given a question on Monday and asked to respond by midnight this morning. For next week, they were given the question this morning, by request of one of the candidates who preferred to have the weekend to work on the answer.
Answers are limited to 250 words, which is a logistical decision and completely unfair based on the complexity of the question.
Question: If the City develops the Cannery site as mixed-use it will take 100 acres of potential business park land out of commission. How do you square that decision with the expressed desire to develop more business park sites for high tech university spin offs? Where do you see business parks being developed and how do you expect to overcome Measure J/ Measure R vote restrictions on those parcels outside of the current city boundaries?
Dan Wolk
This question embodies a positive that has emerged from the Cannery Park debate – an apparent recognition by all sides of the need for economic development in our community. That’s exciting. To become the regional economic engine I (and others) envision, it will take community effort.
That vision, however, does not include developing the site exclusively as a business park. For better or for worse, it is not a viable option and the landowner has no interest in pursuing it. First, a commercial broker tried to market the site for business park development and was unsuccessful. Second, the city’s Housing Steering Committee, BEDC, and the Planning Commission have all recommended housing at the site. Lastly, there is a real need for housing in our community, particularly for young families and seniors.
My vision for economic development in our community entails diversifying our economic and employment base, while also improving sales tax revenue. Among other things, we need to encourage greater technology transfer from UCD (i.e., Davis Roots and the University/Nishi Innovation Hub), remove red tape, and strengthen the downtown.
Besides the envisioned business park components of Nishi and the Cannery, it’s not clear to me that additional business park development on the periphery is needed at this time. The city council has set up a task force to look at this exact question and I await their findings. And of course any such development would be rightfully subject to the will of the voters via Measure J/R.
Stephen Souza
Businesses with the desire to locate in a business park prefer a site that is freeway accessible and visible versus an internal location. If Davis desires to attract businesses and jobs, we must use responsible and credible economic development strategies. We must listen to those we are trying to attract. Building something for a target customer that the customer doesn’t want is an incredible waste of valuable resources. The business community has always stated that there is limited demand for commercial space on the Cannery site. The Cannery site does however provide an opportunity to accomplish the City’s goals of adding essential senior, workforce, student, and young family housing.
I absolutely believe we need a business park to accomplish our economic development goals. I would like to see such a business park/Innovation Hub/ mixed usedevelopment at the Nishi site. Indeed, I have already voted in favor of such a development, along with a council majority.
The Business Park Land Use Strategy report (http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/business_park_land_strategy/index.cfm) concluded:
Davis should “maintain a steady supply of developable business park/industrial land. Pursue (re)development of Downtown and Nishi/Gateway as a dynamic mixed use innovation district.”
I believe Davisites would support a measure R vote to develop the Nishi site. There are minimal impacts to citizen’s lives and the site is surrounded on all sides by developed property or freeway. It gives us the opportunity to collaborate with UC Davis to create access to the site and would provide many benefits to our community.
Brett Lee
I am opposed to the current proposal for the ConAgra site. I believe that the current proposal represents a wasted opportunity.
As one of the last large parcels of undeveloped land within the city’s borders, it is important to make the best use of that land.
The current proposal is for the land to be used for 80% residential and 20% commercial.
I believe a use that would fit our community needs more appropriately would be 50% business park/commercial, 25% senior housing, and 25% small sized (sub 1,000 sq ft.) work/live loft style for sale units.
I think it is appropriate for the city to aggressively work with the landowner to find a business tenant that is willing to locate a corporate campus on the site.
I believe that there is value in adding jobs to our community and diversifying our tax base. While it may take time to find the large tenant for the business campus, it is in our long run interest.
I believe that by adding a senior friendly development, we will have many seniors who currently live in the core areas choose to move in. This will free up existing homes in the core areas for new families to move in to. This will re-energize the existing neighborhoods and allow the new families to become parts of existing, cohesive neighborhoods.
The small, for sale live/work units will provide some age diversity for the development as a whole and it will create permanently affordable, for sale housing.
Lucas Frerichs
Since January 2011, I have participated as a member of the Innovation Park Task Force, established by the Council to explore potential sites for future business park development to accommodate medium-scale businesses.
We have:
-Conducted business outreach and public discussion regarding community benefits and impacts of an innovation park;
-Identified attributes of world-class next-generation university-related innovation park and how they would apply to a future project in Davis;
– Partnered with UCD Extension/ Dr. Jeff Loux and professionals in planning/design, along with students in Community Development, Geography and Landscape Architecture program to create an opportunity for collaboration and dialogue on innovation park projects;
-Explored modeling tools, market surveys, sustainable site/ building design methods and comparable nationwide sites.
The task force will soon return to Council with summary of findings and recommendations.
Vacant leasable space exists within city limits for multiple startups of 5-40 employees; any larger peripheral business park proposal will likely be subject to a Measure J/R vote, would need to be weighed extremely carefully, and put before voters for ultimate approval.
A mixed-use project at the Cannery site does not preclude the development of some of the space to be used for high-tech startups.
Throughout the Innovation Park Task Force process, I’ve found that listening/working with business owners and other local governments/universities that have successfully created space for startups and medium-sized businesses is the first step in our own community process to determine what types of economic development and job growth is appropriate for Davis.
Sue Greenwald
I have been a strong supporter of bringing high-technology companies in Davis.. In order to attract high-technology companies to Davis, we need to have sufficient land zoned and ready to go. That is why I initiated the rezone of the Hunt-Wesson from straight industrial to neighborhood-compatible high tech business park with high landscaping and design review standards and with non-profits also accomodated.
Having this zoning in place gives us leverage. We can trade a certain amount of residential entitlement in exchange for an agreement to keep a certain number of finished high-tech zoned lots on the market. I suggested a compromise requirement of 30 or so acres with the remainder residential.
High technology businesses DO NOT have to be located on the freeway. Talk to Pam Marrone or e-mail Norm Rogers who used to own Z-world. They were both interested in expanding to Hunt-Wesson. Or look at this map of high technology clusters scattered around Cambridge Massachusetts far from any freeway http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/ed/pubs/ed_company_map.pdf
No developer is going to agree to develop a high tech business park if they feel that they can get to council to give them more lucrative residential zoning. This has been the problem with the Hunt-Wesson. Council has always signaled that they will buckle.
–David M. Greenwald reporting
So everyone has a plan for doing something there except Sue. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise Gomer!
Sue and I voted to establish the current zoning, and I support keeping it the same. The City has failed to promote that site for its current zoning. So long as there are housing proposals that are getting any traction with the CC, of course the land owner is going to push for that more profitable option, and tell the city that the poor owner has had no luck with marketing as a commercial/R&D/tech park.
[quote]… the council candidates were given a question on Monday and asked to respond by midnight this morning …[/quote][quote]Sue Greenwald
(not received at time of publication – will add later)[/quote]David: We’ve listened to seemingly endless filibusters by Sue on this issue over the last decade. Now that it’s time to stand and deliver she’s AWOL? What’s up with that?
I’m sure Sue will respond…
Sorry David,
I did’t notice your reminder. I have am under deadline, and will respond later today. Thanks.
I assure you Sue has a plan in mind. She also has a lot on her plate and I am sure will give us something soon. I won’t speak for her but she has expressed her views at CC meetings.
I’m sure it was an honest oversight by Sue. As soon as she gets us the answer we’ll post it.
Whatever ultimately is done with the ConAgra site, one thing strikes me as important, but not said by any of the candidates:
This property should be developed (if it is to be developed) in conjunction with or coordination with the next door Covell Village property. I am not saying they have to be developed at the same time. But because the 100 acre ConAgra site is fairly large but lacks good ingress and egress and likely will cause traffic problems in the area around Covell and J Street, it seems to me that smart planning would include a road plan (and perhaps a plan for other infrastructure) for all the acreage from Covell and Pole Line to Covell and the railroad tracks on the north side of Covell.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wkzfoml3qIE/T5sHnKvRtTI/AAAAAAAAAlM/amq_FUPKNGg/s1600/covell+development.bmp[/img]
I know it goes against what the owners of the Covell Village property are now proposing–Senior Village–but maybe the area in red which fronts Covell Blvd. should all be retail/commercial and office, which would fit in with the mall across Covell and could be constructed to allow for traffic to flow well on Covell.
Then, some years from now, if there is demand and if they can figure out how to move traffic over or under the rail line, the northern half of the ConAgra site could be developed as high-tech industrial and the northern half of the Covell Village site could be housing of various types.
All that said, it seems to me that other than for apartments, Davis really has little need for new housing now and likely won’t need much in the next 5 years. And as others have said, demand for commercial or industrial space is not so strong, either. But I suspect that in 5-10 years, it could work to have a Costco and a Nordstrom’s and perhaps a Fry’s Electronics along the north side of Covell.
“Work” for whom?
It could work for the people of Davis who buy the food and other items that Costco sells, the clothes and other stuff that Nordstrom sells and the appliances and electronics that Fry’s offers. Also, those types of sellers would generate a lot of tax revenue for the City.
I just sent in my answer. No surprises! It is exactly what I have been posting on these pages consistently, but in less explanation due to the word limit.
Rifkin : “This property should be developed (if it is to be developed) in conjunction with or coordination with the next door Covell Village property.”
When Rifkin and I agree on something it should automatically be flagged as worthy of further study. Obviously we are either right or i have gone off the deep-end. All of the described development needs, even Sue’s obstructionist arguments for some sort of business park could easily be accommodated by a larger footprint. The geography of the two sites also make joint planning a no brainer. The questionable future of the pass through agreement due to reform of redevelopment will also drive the county to pursue a discussion of how to make up the lost revenue stream and no place is as logical to look as Covell Village.
City staff under Emlen wisely sought to plan for both sites but was undermined by the white hot politics of the post measure x era so the unwillingness of all the candidates to want to open that can of worms is understandable. Still, joint planning of Covell and Cannery, this third rail of Davis politics, makes such obvious sense that the universal cowardice of the candidates serves to demonstrate how jaded and counter-productive the collective anti-growth consciousness of Davis politics has become.
[i]”When Rifkin and I agree on something it should automatically be [b]flagged[/b] as worthy of further study.”[/i]
There you go again, Toad, demeaning our flag.
[img]http://www.fanshop-online.de/images/u/us-ca-wo.gif[/img]
Mr. Toad
“how jaded and counter-productive the collective anti-growth consciousness of Davis politics has become.”
During your celebration of your agreement with Rich, you seem to have over looked what I found to be a critical part of his statement. Namely,
“if it is to be developed”. With 177 single family homes currently for sale, 44 houses, and only 25 apartment buildings with rentals now available, unless the developer plans to build only apartments or multiple family units, it would not appear that there is a pressing ( or indeed any) needed for the mid to high end homes which predominate in the latest iteration of the Cannery proposal.