The article quotes one of the General Plan Housing Element Update Steering committee members, Pam Gunnell, appointed by Mayor Sue Greenwald as favoring maintaining the property as currently zoned.
Said Ms. Gunnell, who ran for City Council in 2002:
“I have a real concern with preserving industrial land for the city… It’s difficult for me to hear the word ‘workforce housing’ because where are they going to work?”
On the other hand, Committee member Eileen Samitz appointed by Councilmember Lamar Heystek, strongly favored changing the designation to residential.
“The city has 160 acres of undeveloped industrial and light industrial land, not including the cannery property; the property is half paved already; and plenty of time has passed and the property has yet to attract proposals from industrial businesses.”
This is a microcosm of an interesting debate within the progressive community. Mayor Greenwald has long been an advocate of bringing in high tech companies to Davis and believes this to be an ideal site for such industry.
Others in the community view the property and its development potential very differently. Many prefer that Davis has limited housing growth. They recognize that this 100 acre property is already partially paved, and therefore such a development would not require the development of agricultural land. Therefore if there must be new housing developed, it should be in this location.
There is a further problem however with the Hunt-Wesson site, although it is within the city limits already and would not require a Measure J vote, the adjacent property is the 800-acre elephant in the room–the Covell Village site.
One of the fears is that the two properties would be considered at the same time.
The Enterprise quotes Kevin Wolf, the committee chairman and a strong proponent of Covell Village during the Measure X campaign as saying,
“Do we really think we’re going to take and leave that for the next 30 years and develop on other ag land?”
This is a tricky issue to be sure. One for which I can see both sides. In the end, I probably come down a bit closer to changing its use to housing while at the same time making it clear that Covell Village will be a huge fight if the Committee deems that it needs to revisit the issue. Keeping the property light industry would probably slightly reduce the chances for development on the Covell site, however, Davis does need more housing and if it is to develop housing, I would rather it not take ag land to do so.
Personally I think any decision to re-examine development on the Covell Village site is a huge show of disrespect for the will of the Davis voters, 60 percent of whom voted against the project. People have asked if I could foresee it never being developed as a realistic option. Never is a long time. However in the near future the concerns about infrastructure remain just as viable as they did in 2005. So in the foreseeable future, I remain opposed to development on the Covell Village site.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Under Eminent Domain,could the city force Whitecomb to sell some land on the eastern border of the Hunt-Wessen property to ease the access/exit traffic of a potential Cannery Row mixed-use development?
Under Eminent Domain,could the city force Whitecomb to sell some land on the eastern border of the Hunt-Wessen property to ease the access/exit traffic of a potential Cannery Row mixed-use development?
Under Eminent Domain,could the city force Whitecomb to sell some land on the eastern border of the Hunt-Wessen property to ease the access/exit traffic of a potential Cannery Row mixed-use development?
Under Eminent Domain,could the city force Whitecomb to sell some land on the eastern border of the Hunt-Wessen property to ease the access/exit traffic of a potential Cannery Row mixed-use development?
Just to note, while voters rejected the Covell Village project itself, that shouldn’t be read as a rejection of any future development of that particular parcel. That particular development proposal had plenty of issues which led to its rejection (traffic, affordable housing, etc.), but a future project might be more appealing to the voters. If the vote had been on ANY development at the site, that would be different, but it’s unreasonable to expect that planners won’t look to the site for some development, given its location.
Just to note, while voters rejected the Covell Village project itself, that shouldn’t be read as a rejection of any future development of that particular parcel. That particular development proposal had plenty of issues which led to its rejection (traffic, affordable housing, etc.), but a future project might be more appealing to the voters. If the vote had been on ANY development at the site, that would be different, but it’s unreasonable to expect that planners won’t look to the site for some development, given its location.
Just to note, while voters rejected the Covell Village project itself, that shouldn’t be read as a rejection of any future development of that particular parcel. That particular development proposal had plenty of issues which led to its rejection (traffic, affordable housing, etc.), but a future project might be more appealing to the voters. If the vote had been on ANY development at the site, that would be different, but it’s unreasonable to expect that planners won’t look to the site for some development, given its location.
Just to note, while voters rejected the Covell Village project itself, that shouldn’t be read as a rejection of any future development of that particular parcel. That particular development proposal had plenty of issues which led to its rejection (traffic, affordable housing, etc.), but a future project might be more appealing to the voters. If the vote had been on ANY development at the site, that would be different, but it’s unreasonable to expect that planners won’t look to the site for some development, given its location.
Covell Village was a bad idea that has thankfully been been killed for the time being. Sadly, like one of those hockey-masked murder movies, it will probably come back to life for several sequels before the franchise fades away… In the meantime, Tim Lewis and his homebuilders should find another town and stop squatting on this prime industrial property.
Covell Village was a bad idea that has thankfully been been killed for the time being. Sadly, like one of those hockey-masked murder movies, it will probably come back to life for several sequels before the franchise fades away… In the meantime, Tim Lewis and his homebuilders should find another town and stop squatting on this prime industrial property.
Covell Village was a bad idea that has thankfully been been killed for the time being. Sadly, like one of those hockey-masked murder movies, it will probably come back to life for several sequels before the franchise fades away… In the meantime, Tim Lewis and his homebuilders should find another town and stop squatting on this prime industrial property.
Covell Village was a bad idea that has thankfully been been killed for the time being. Sadly, like one of those hockey-masked murder movies, it will probably come back to life for several sequels before the franchise fades away… In the meantime, Tim Lewis and his homebuilders should find another town and stop squatting on this prime industrial property.
I think it is so unwise to consider residential at the cannery – especially LOW DENSITY as some are advocating. If we preserve the zoning then we can attract high tech. We also have the chance to construct a permanent urban limit line there if we hold the zoning. The cannery property has one entrance to 100 acres!!! Can you imagine 100 acres of houses with one driveway?? The only reason the cannery owners have not pursued high tech is because the pro-growth council majority is receptive to housing. Why in the world would we let land speculators make money by rezoning to high tech? (residential land is more valuable) Why in the world would we put low density housing there which goes against every smart growth principal there is?
I think it is so unwise to consider residential at the cannery – especially LOW DENSITY as some are advocating. If we preserve the zoning then we can attract high tech. We also have the chance to construct a permanent urban limit line there if we hold the zoning. The cannery property has one entrance to 100 acres!!! Can you imagine 100 acres of houses with one driveway?? The only reason the cannery owners have not pursued high tech is because the pro-growth council majority is receptive to housing. Why in the world would we let land speculators make money by rezoning to high tech? (residential land is more valuable) Why in the world would we put low density housing there which goes against every smart growth principal there is?
I think it is so unwise to consider residential at the cannery – especially LOW DENSITY as some are advocating. If we preserve the zoning then we can attract high tech. We also have the chance to construct a permanent urban limit line there if we hold the zoning. The cannery property has one entrance to 100 acres!!! Can you imagine 100 acres of houses with one driveway?? The only reason the cannery owners have not pursued high tech is because the pro-growth council majority is receptive to housing. Why in the world would we let land speculators make money by rezoning to high tech? (residential land is more valuable) Why in the world would we put low density housing there which goes against every smart growth principal there is?
I think it is so unwise to consider residential at the cannery – especially LOW DENSITY as some are advocating. If we preserve the zoning then we can attract high tech. We also have the chance to construct a permanent urban limit line there if we hold the zoning. The cannery property has one entrance to 100 acres!!! Can you imagine 100 acres of houses with one driveway?? The only reason the cannery owners have not pursued high tech is because the pro-growth council majority is receptive to housing. Why in the world would we let land speculators make money by rezoning to high tech? (residential land is more valuable) Why in the world would we put low density housing there which goes against every smart growth principal there is?
Why not build warehouses, and light manufacturing on the Cannery site? It’s right next to the California Northern rail line, with access a mile south to the Union Pacific transcontinental line.
I realize the siding off the tracks along F Street has been removed, but it would be a lot less expensive to replace it and build the aforementioned light industrial facilities, which would have the added boon of providing employment for Davis youths.
Also, being served by rail would eliminate potential car and truck traffic problems–conjestion, pollution, etc.–posed by building more suburban tract housing on the site.
Why not build warehouses, and light manufacturing on the Cannery site? It’s right next to the California Northern rail line, with access a mile south to the Union Pacific transcontinental line.
I realize the siding off the tracks along F Street has been removed, but it would be a lot less expensive to replace it and build the aforementioned light industrial facilities, which would have the added boon of providing employment for Davis youths.
Also, being served by rail would eliminate potential car and truck traffic problems–conjestion, pollution, etc.–posed by building more suburban tract housing on the site.
Why not build warehouses, and light manufacturing on the Cannery site? It’s right next to the California Northern rail line, with access a mile south to the Union Pacific transcontinental line.
I realize the siding off the tracks along F Street has been removed, but it would be a lot less expensive to replace it and build the aforementioned light industrial facilities, which would have the added boon of providing employment for Davis youths.
Also, being served by rail would eliminate potential car and truck traffic problems–conjestion, pollution, etc.–posed by building more suburban tract housing on the site.
Why not build warehouses, and light manufacturing on the Cannery site? It’s right next to the California Northern rail line, with access a mile south to the Union Pacific transcontinental line.
I realize the siding off the tracks along F Street has been removed, but it would be a lot less expensive to replace it and build the aforementioned light industrial facilities, which would have the added boon of providing employment for Davis youths.
Also, being served by rail would eliminate potential car and truck traffic problems–conjestion, pollution, etc.–posed by building more suburban tract housing on the site.
To date there has been no development…there needs to be more flexability for mixed use. You should not be closed off to this idea Pam. We know you’re a Sue appointee but you should talk to neighbors to see what they think.
mixed use supporter
To date there has been no development…there needs to be more flexability for mixed use. You should not be closed off to this idea Pam. We know you’re a Sue appointee but you should talk to neighbors to see what they think.
mixed use supporter
To date there has been no development…there needs to be more flexability for mixed use. You should not be closed off to this idea Pam. We know you’re a Sue appointee but you should talk to neighbors to see what they think.
mixed use supporter
To date there has been no development…there needs to be more flexability for mixed use. You should not be closed off to this idea Pam. We know you’re a Sue appointee but you should talk to neighbors to see what they think.
mixed use supporter
Gunnell said: “If we preserve zoning we can attract high tech.”
Question: The place has been vacant for so long. Why have there been no high tech businesses so far? How much longer does it have to remain empty?
Gunnell said: “If we preserve zoning we can attract high tech.”
Question: The place has been vacant for so long. Why have there been no high tech businesses so far? How much longer does it have to remain empty?
Gunnell said: “If we preserve zoning we can attract high tech.”
Question: The place has been vacant for so long. Why have there been no high tech businesses so far? How much longer does it have to remain empty?
Gunnell said: “If we preserve zoning we can attract high tech.”
Question: The place has been vacant for so long. Why have there been no high tech businesses so far? How much longer does it have to remain empty?
There have been no high tech proposals because it was bought by land speculators who believe that the council majority will help them rezone it to residential or residential mixed use. So the speculators are betting that they can get a rezone and make significantly more money than the industrial zoning. Why do we want more housing that does not pay for itself (taxes do not cover cost of city services)? Why not encourage economic development that could provide a source of sustainable revenue for the city?
There have been no high tech proposals because it was bought by land speculators who believe that the council majority will help them rezone it to residential or residential mixed use. So the speculators are betting that they can get a rezone and make significantly more money than the industrial zoning. Why do we want more housing that does not pay for itself (taxes do not cover cost of city services)? Why not encourage economic development that could provide a source of sustainable revenue for the city?
There have been no high tech proposals because it was bought by land speculators who believe that the council majority will help them rezone it to residential or residential mixed use. So the speculators are betting that they can get a rezone and make significantly more money than the industrial zoning. Why do we want more housing that does not pay for itself (taxes do not cover cost of city services)? Why not encourage economic development that could provide a source of sustainable revenue for the city?
There have been no high tech proposals because it was bought by land speculators who believe that the council majority will help them rezone it to residential or residential mixed use. So the speculators are betting that they can get a rezone and make significantly more money than the industrial zoning. Why do we want more housing that does not pay for itself (taxes do not cover cost of city services)? Why not encourage economic development that could provide a source of sustainable revenue for the city?
Keeping the Hunt-Wessen site zoned for Higth Tech and allowing a
smaller(less than 50%?) and more affordable residential development on the CV property adjacent to Covell Blvd would be a good compromise. The northern edge of this much-reduced Covell Village residential development should be an iron-clad future urban limit line for this property.
Keeping the Hunt-Wessen site zoned for Higth Tech and allowing a
smaller(less than 50%?) and more affordable residential development on the CV property adjacent to Covell Blvd would be a good compromise. The northern edge of this much-reduced Covell Village residential development should be an iron-clad future urban limit line for this property.
Keeping the Hunt-Wessen site zoned for Higth Tech and allowing a
smaller(less than 50%?) and more affordable residential development on the CV property adjacent to Covell Blvd would be a good compromise. The northern edge of this much-reduced Covell Village residential development should be an iron-clad future urban limit line for this property.
Keeping the Hunt-Wessen site zoned for Higth Tech and allowing a
smaller(less than 50%?) and more affordable residential development on the CV property adjacent to Covell Blvd would be a good compromise. The northern edge of this much-reduced Covell Village residential development should be an iron-clad future urban limit line for this property.
Pam Gunnell is right on this one. It is an awkward place to put housing. It is the only place we could put noisy industrial development.
We need more jobs. The university is complaining of a lack of lab space in town. Why not there?
Pam Gunnell is right on this one. It is an awkward place to put housing. It is the only place we could put noisy industrial development.
We need more jobs. The university is complaining of a lack of lab space in town. Why not there?
Pam Gunnell is right on this one. It is an awkward place to put housing. It is the only place we could put noisy industrial development.
We need more jobs. The university is complaining of a lack of lab space in town. Why not there?
Pam Gunnell is right on this one. It is an awkward place to put housing. It is the only place we could put noisy industrial development.
We need more jobs. The university is complaining of a lack of lab space in town. Why not there?
UCD has plenty of land. They can use their own property for development.
UCD has plenty of land. They can use their own property for development.
UCD has plenty of land. They can use their own property for development.
UCD has plenty of land. They can use their own property for development.
Sadly, the viability of a 100-acre business park at the old cannery site is DOA. Why hold this infill property hostage any longer when city staff excluded it from being considered developable for research park purposes due to poor access and surrounding residential back in 1998?
Let the owner develop a balanced mix of affordable/middle income housing and a modest office park so the eyesore is gone.
Sadly, the viability of a 100-acre business park at the old cannery site is DOA. Why hold this infill property hostage any longer when city staff excluded it from being considered developable for research park purposes due to poor access and surrounding residential back in 1998?
Let the owner develop a balanced mix of affordable/middle income housing and a modest office park so the eyesore is gone.
Sadly, the viability of a 100-acre business park at the old cannery site is DOA. Why hold this infill property hostage any longer when city staff excluded it from being considered developable for research park purposes due to poor access and surrounding residential back in 1998?
Let the owner develop a balanced mix of affordable/middle income housing and a modest office park so the eyesore is gone.
Sadly, the viability of a 100-acre business park at the old cannery site is DOA. Why hold this infill property hostage any longer when city staff excluded it from being considered developable for research park purposes due to poor access and surrounding residential back in 1998?
Let the owner develop a balanced mix of affordable/middle income housing and a modest office park so the eyesore is gone.
I say develope the site for the homeless and the newly parolled criminal element. When it is full, blow it up and start all over again.
I say develope the site for the homeless and the newly parolled criminal element. When it is full, blow it up and start all over again.
I say develope the site for the homeless and the newly parolled criminal element. When it is full, blow it up and start all over again.
I say develope the site for the homeless and the newly parolled criminal element. When it is full, blow it up and start all over again.