Commentary: Council Goes Forward with Examining Housing on the Lewis Property

Share:
The Lewis Property, Cannery Park, has been a tricky issue for the city and also for progressives to deal with. There are actually three different mindsets for what and how to develop that property, with progressives at times split between two of them.

The issue has come up for consideration and also has been tabled because the Council wanted to consider it jointly due to its proximity to Covell Village. Some on the side of developers, those on the side of the council majority would like to see the Lewis Property considered in conjunction with Covell Village.

On the other hand, progressives are opposed to any development in the near future on the Covell Village site but differ on what to do on the Lewis Property.

Mayor Sue Greenwald has long advocated for this property, which is currently zoned as high tech and light industrial to remain so. She argues that Davis needs to develop its own industry and business to avoid becoming just another bedroom town. She says we have enough housing but would like to see new high tech companies that can hire people directly out of college to stay in Davis and get work in the high tech field.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek said that the current proposal from the Lewis property owners is not one he would vote on. However, he believes that proposal will change in the future. His key focus was to avoid allowing the Lewis Property to be tied to Covell Village.

Councilmember Heystek argued that any such discussion of developing Lewis and Covell jointly flies in the face of the citizens’ will that was expressed in the Measure X election in November 2005. The voters of Davis voted strongly against the wholesale loss of peripheral agricultural land. A city staff-promoted concept plan that envisions the joint development of the Lewis and Covell sites would most probably trigger a Measure J vote, reopening a discussion that we just had less than two years ago. This is not what Davis needs.

While I sympathesize with the arguments that Mayor Sue Greenwald makes here, as I have studied the issue, I have become firmly in the camp of Councilmember Lamar Heystek.

First of all, developing the Lewis Property does not require any sort of Measure J vote. And I think even in properties that are not controversial, a Measure J vote will be time consuming and costly. As such we need to look into developing areas first that do not require a Measure J vote.

Second, Davis is in need of housing. The question is where is the best place to put it. While I am not opposed to densification, I often think that densification results in loss of character of core areas of the town. If it is not done well, densification could make our problems worse rather than better. Therefore, I wish to look for housing sites first where we do not need to build four and five story buildings in the core of town, altering the site and landscape inalterably.

Third, unlike a lot of properties that are under consideration, Lewis Property is already paved and it is just sitting there. There is no agriculture there. We are not talking about paving over prime agricultural land.

Fourth and finally, while I like the idea in concept of a high tech zone in Davis, I do not see it as viable at this point in time and furthermore I am less than sure I would want it where Lewis property is. I think a better area for high tech development would be along Second Street out along I-80.

Last the night the agenda item to explore residential development on the Lewis Property was passed with a 4-1 vote, Mayor Sue Greenwald the only dissenting vote. Councilmember Heystek was able to limit the community feedback about the Lewis Property to that specific site rather than any sort of joint study with the Covell Property. This will hopefully go a long way towards an avoidance of developing these parcels jointly.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting with help from Simon Efrein

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

140 thoughts on “Commentary: Council Goes Forward with Examining Housing on the Lewis Property”

  1. campaign watcher

    Housing on the Hunts Cannery property is an awful idea. It is sandwiched between the train tracks and agricultural land with Covell Blvd. the only access. It will be a nightmare trying to get out of there on a bike or on foot.

    It is perfect for what it was zoned for – industrial. We are losing an economic development opportunity here and with housing on it, it is set up to continue the housing over onto Covell Village land. It will only make sense to complete the greenbelt around the city and not leave Lewis homes isolated up there. We can all ignore the pink elephant in the room and not talk about it, but the elephant is still there.

    This is a really stupid.

  2. campaign watcher

    Housing on the Hunts Cannery property is an awful idea. It is sandwiched between the train tracks and agricultural land with Covell Blvd. the only access. It will be a nightmare trying to get out of there on a bike or on foot.

    It is perfect for what it was zoned for – industrial. We are losing an economic development opportunity here and with housing on it, it is set up to continue the housing over onto Covell Village land. It will only make sense to complete the greenbelt around the city and not leave Lewis homes isolated up there. We can all ignore the pink elephant in the room and not talk about it, but the elephant is still there.

    This is a really stupid.

  3. campaign watcher

    Housing on the Hunts Cannery property is an awful idea. It is sandwiched between the train tracks and agricultural land with Covell Blvd. the only access. It will be a nightmare trying to get out of there on a bike or on foot.

    It is perfect for what it was zoned for – industrial. We are losing an economic development opportunity here and with housing on it, it is set up to continue the housing over onto Covell Village land. It will only make sense to complete the greenbelt around the city and not leave Lewis homes isolated up there. We can all ignore the pink elephant in the room and not talk about it, but the elephant is still there.

    This is a really stupid.

  4. campaign watcher

    Housing on the Hunts Cannery property is an awful idea. It is sandwiched between the train tracks and agricultural land with Covell Blvd. the only access. It will be a nightmare trying to get out of there on a bike or on foot.

    It is perfect for what it was zoned for – industrial. We are losing an economic development opportunity here and with housing on it, it is set up to continue the housing over onto Covell Village land. It will only make sense to complete the greenbelt around the city and not leave Lewis homes isolated up there. We can all ignore the pink elephant in the room and not talk about it, but the elephant is still there.

    This is a really stupid.

  5. davisite

    I suggest that those who did not view Mayor Greenwald’s position last evening take a look at the videostreaming of the Council meeting when it comes on-line in a day or two. Her arguments were the most well-thought- out and the most convincing. One of her economic points needs emphasizing.. We are seeing a significant falling of the dollar value compared to foreign currencies(dollar is at an all-time low compared to the Euro). This makes foreign high-tech investment in Davis much more economically attractive than in the past and this site is the last large piece(most desired by potential high-tech operations)in Davis. Mayor Greenwald’s position did not preclude some residential development on this site in conjunction with the bulk of the site going to high-tech with its significant revenue-generating value to the city.

    While your are streaming this discussion,Take a long look at the Council Ag Mitigation discussion that occured later in the evening as well. Councilman Saylor’s attempt use to disguise his desire to gut its provisions in bureaucratic rhetoric
    was evident to those who listened carefully.

  6. davisite

    I suggest that those who did not view Mayor Greenwald’s position last evening take a look at the videostreaming of the Council meeting when it comes on-line in a day or two. Her arguments were the most well-thought- out and the most convincing. One of her economic points needs emphasizing.. We are seeing a significant falling of the dollar value compared to foreign currencies(dollar is at an all-time low compared to the Euro). This makes foreign high-tech investment in Davis much more economically attractive than in the past and this site is the last large piece(most desired by potential high-tech operations)in Davis. Mayor Greenwald’s position did not preclude some residential development on this site in conjunction with the bulk of the site going to high-tech with its significant revenue-generating value to the city.

    While your are streaming this discussion,Take a long look at the Council Ag Mitigation discussion that occured later in the evening as well. Councilman Saylor’s attempt use to disguise his desire to gut its provisions in bureaucratic rhetoric
    was evident to those who listened carefully.

  7. davisite

    I suggest that those who did not view Mayor Greenwald’s position last evening take a look at the videostreaming of the Council meeting when it comes on-line in a day or two. Her arguments were the most well-thought- out and the most convincing. One of her economic points needs emphasizing.. We are seeing a significant falling of the dollar value compared to foreign currencies(dollar is at an all-time low compared to the Euro). This makes foreign high-tech investment in Davis much more economically attractive than in the past and this site is the last large piece(most desired by potential high-tech operations)in Davis. Mayor Greenwald’s position did not preclude some residential development on this site in conjunction with the bulk of the site going to high-tech with its significant revenue-generating value to the city.

    While your are streaming this discussion,Take a long look at the Council Ag Mitigation discussion that occured later in the evening as well. Councilman Saylor’s attempt use to disguise his desire to gut its provisions in bureaucratic rhetoric
    was evident to those who listened carefully.

  8. davisite

    I suggest that those who did not view Mayor Greenwald’s position last evening take a look at the videostreaming of the Council meeting when it comes on-line in a day or two. Her arguments were the most well-thought- out and the most convincing. One of her economic points needs emphasizing.. We are seeing a significant falling of the dollar value compared to foreign currencies(dollar is at an all-time low compared to the Euro). This makes foreign high-tech investment in Davis much more economically attractive than in the past and this site is the last large piece(most desired by potential high-tech operations)in Davis. Mayor Greenwald’s position did not preclude some residential development on this site in conjunction with the bulk of the site going to high-tech with its significant revenue-generating value to the city.

    While your are streaming this discussion,Take a long look at the Council Ag Mitigation discussion that occured later in the evening as well. Councilman Saylor’s attempt use to disguise his desire to gut its provisions in bureaucratic rhetoric
    was evident to those who listened carefully.

  9. Anonymous

    DPD – thank you for writing for a balanced and reasoned blog on this subject. It is the first balanced piece that I have seen regarding potential development.

    I haven’t lived in DAvis long enough to know why this site hasn’t been used as an industrial site, but the fact that it has been as long as it has suggests that for whatever reason, it isn’t interesting to anyone as an industrial property. Further, it may well be that industry needs to see that adequate housing can and will be made available if they bring new jobs to Davis.

    I’m glad that the City will deliberate further on this site as an residential complex. There will be opportunities to modify the development proposal as staff studies the proposal.

  10. Anonymous

    DPD – thank you for writing for a balanced and reasoned blog on this subject. It is the first balanced piece that I have seen regarding potential development.

    I haven’t lived in DAvis long enough to know why this site hasn’t been used as an industrial site, but the fact that it has been as long as it has suggests that for whatever reason, it isn’t interesting to anyone as an industrial property. Further, it may well be that industry needs to see that adequate housing can and will be made available if they bring new jobs to Davis.

    I’m glad that the City will deliberate further on this site as an residential complex. There will be opportunities to modify the development proposal as staff studies the proposal.

  11. Anonymous

    DPD – thank you for writing for a balanced and reasoned blog on this subject. It is the first balanced piece that I have seen regarding potential development.

    I haven’t lived in DAvis long enough to know why this site hasn’t been used as an industrial site, but the fact that it has been as long as it has suggests that for whatever reason, it isn’t interesting to anyone as an industrial property. Further, it may well be that industry needs to see that adequate housing can and will be made available if they bring new jobs to Davis.

    I’m glad that the City will deliberate further on this site as an residential complex. There will be opportunities to modify the development proposal as staff studies the proposal.

  12. Anonymous

    DPD – thank you for writing for a balanced and reasoned blog on this subject. It is the first balanced piece that I have seen regarding potential development.

    I haven’t lived in DAvis long enough to know why this site hasn’t been used as an industrial site, but the fact that it has been as long as it has suggests that for whatever reason, it isn’t interesting to anyone as an industrial property. Further, it may well be that industry needs to see that adequate housing can and will be made available if they bring new jobs to Davis.

    I’m glad that the City will deliberate further on this site as an residential complex. There will be opportunities to modify the development proposal as staff studies the proposal.

  13. Anonymous

    NY Times-Wednesday, Oct. 24

    Home Sales Slump at 8-Year Low
    By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

    It was the steepest monthly decline since the National Association of Realtors began measuring combined sales of condominiums and single-family homes in 1999.

  14. Anonymous

    NY Times-Wednesday, Oct. 24

    Home Sales Slump at 8-Year Low
    By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

    It was the steepest monthly decline since the National Association of Realtors began measuring combined sales of condominiums and single-family homes in 1999.

  15. Anonymous

    NY Times-Wednesday, Oct. 24

    Home Sales Slump at 8-Year Low
    By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

    It was the steepest monthly decline since the National Association of Realtors began measuring combined sales of condominiums and single-family homes in 1999.

  16. Anonymous

    NY Times-Wednesday, Oct. 24

    Home Sales Slump at 8-Year Low
    By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

    It was the steepest monthly decline since the National Association of Realtors began measuring combined sales of condominiums and single-family homes in 1999.

  17. Anonymous

    It didn’t take long for someone to post something about the housing slump, apparently suggesting this a reason that we should be opposed to building any more housing. This completely confuses me — Lewis is the owner/developer — if they think that they will not be able to develop for a profit – they already own the land – then they will not do it. No need for Davis citizens to worry on behalf of Lewis.

  18. Anonymous

    It didn’t take long for someone to post something about the housing slump, apparently suggesting this a reason that we should be opposed to building any more housing. This completely confuses me — Lewis is the owner/developer — if they think that they will not be able to develop for a profit – they already own the land – then they will not do it. No need for Davis citizens to worry on behalf of Lewis.

  19. Anonymous

    It didn’t take long for someone to post something about the housing slump, apparently suggesting this a reason that we should be opposed to building any more housing. This completely confuses me — Lewis is the owner/developer — if they think that they will not be able to develop for a profit – they already own the land – then they will not do it. No need for Davis citizens to worry on behalf of Lewis.

  20. Anonymous

    It didn’t take long for someone to post something about the housing slump, apparently suggesting this a reason that we should be opposed to building any more housing. This completely confuses me — Lewis is the owner/developer — if they think that they will not be able to develop for a profit – they already own the land – then they will not do it. No need for Davis citizens to worry on behalf of Lewis.

  21. anonymous 8:45 AM

    Anonymous 8:49
    The REGIONAL excess housing inventory is growing monthly. KB Housing just up the road reported that there is no end in sight for their growing excess housing inventory. We should take this REGIONAL housing glut opportunity to keep the focus on the city’s revenue generating potential rather than removing land from non-residential zoning.

    …and it is pretty naive to place ones faith in the complex economic business decisions of developers to protect my interests.

  22. anonymous 8:45 AM

    Anonymous 8:49
    The REGIONAL excess housing inventory is growing monthly. KB Housing just up the road reported that there is no end in sight for their growing excess housing inventory. We should take this REGIONAL housing glut opportunity to keep the focus on the city’s revenue generating potential rather than removing land from non-residential zoning.

    …and it is pretty naive to place ones faith in the complex economic business decisions of developers to protect my interests.

  23. anonymous 8:45 AM

    Anonymous 8:49
    The REGIONAL excess housing inventory is growing monthly. KB Housing just up the road reported that there is no end in sight for their growing excess housing inventory. We should take this REGIONAL housing glut opportunity to keep the focus on the city’s revenue generating potential rather than removing land from non-residential zoning.

    …and it is pretty naive to place ones faith in the complex economic business decisions of developers to protect my interests.

  24. anonymous 8:45 AM

    Anonymous 8:49
    The REGIONAL excess housing inventory is growing monthly. KB Housing just up the road reported that there is no end in sight for their growing excess housing inventory. We should take this REGIONAL housing glut opportunity to keep the focus on the city’s revenue generating potential rather than removing land from non-residential zoning.

    …and it is pretty naive to place ones faith in the complex economic business decisions of developers to protect my interests.

  25. Anonymous

    DPD,

    I know this is off topic, but it is annoying that Don Winters would send an email to Bob Dunning essentially confessing to impropriety, yet he won’t come on this board and fess up, or send you a message and say what actually happened. This is very damaging for Joe Spector. They need to clear the air. This is a good place to do it if they don’t think they will get a fair shake from the Enterprise. Ignoring it is not acceptable. How about starting a new topic inviting Don and Joe to comment?

  26. Anonymous

    DPD,

    I know this is off topic, but it is annoying that Don Winters would send an email to Bob Dunning essentially confessing to impropriety, yet he won’t come on this board and fess up, or send you a message and say what actually happened. This is very damaging for Joe Spector. They need to clear the air. This is a good place to do it if they don’t think they will get a fair shake from the Enterprise. Ignoring it is not acceptable. How about starting a new topic inviting Don and Joe to comment?

  27. Anonymous

    DPD,

    I know this is off topic, but it is annoying that Don Winters would send an email to Bob Dunning essentially confessing to impropriety, yet he won’t come on this board and fess up, or send you a message and say what actually happened. This is very damaging for Joe Spector. They need to clear the air. This is a good place to do it if they don’t think they will get a fair shake from the Enterprise. Ignoring it is not acceptable. How about starting a new topic inviting Don and Joe to comment?

  28. Anonymous

    DPD,

    I know this is off topic, but it is annoying that Don Winters would send an email to Bob Dunning essentially confessing to impropriety, yet he won’t come on this board and fess up, or send you a message and say what actually happened. This is very damaging for Joe Spector. They need to clear the air. This is a good place to do it if they don’t think they will get a fair shake from the Enterprise. Ignoring it is not acceptable. How about starting a new topic inviting Don and Joe to comment?

  29. Vincente

    The housing slump argument makes no sense, we’re talking about something that would probably be completed no sooner than five years–will there still be a housing slump then? I have to doubt it.

  30. Vincente

    The housing slump argument makes no sense, we’re talking about something that would probably be completed no sooner than five years–will there still be a housing slump then? I have to doubt it.

  31. Vincente

    The housing slump argument makes no sense, we’re talking about something that would probably be completed no sooner than five years–will there still be a housing slump then? I have to doubt it.

  32. Vincente

    The housing slump argument makes no sense, we’re talking about something that would probably be completed no sooner than five years–will there still be a housing slump then? I have to doubt it.

  33. campaign watcher

    Weeks before the election, I am uninterested in hashing and rehashing the envelope stuffing issue. I will stop reading this blog, like I stop reading the Enterprise before elections, if it focuses much more time on it. There are larger issues and greater problems in our schools to discuss.

  34. campaign watcher

    Weeks before the election, I am uninterested in hashing and rehashing the envelope stuffing issue. I will stop reading this blog, like I stop reading the Enterprise before elections, if it focuses much more time on it. There are larger issues and greater problems in our schools to discuss.

  35. campaign watcher

    Weeks before the election, I am uninterested in hashing and rehashing the envelope stuffing issue. I will stop reading this blog, like I stop reading the Enterprise before elections, if it focuses much more time on it. There are larger issues and greater problems in our schools to discuss.

  36. campaign watcher

    Weeks before the election, I am uninterested in hashing and rehashing the envelope stuffing issue. I will stop reading this blog, like I stop reading the Enterprise before elections, if it focuses much more time on it. There are larger issues and greater problems in our schools to discuss.

  37. Voice of Reason

    A vote against Covell Village was not necessarily a vote to save ag land. I voted against Covell Village because I did not think the city should allow more housing development when it does not have the necessary funding for the accompanying infrastructure, e.g. police, fire, etc. Be careful about making such generalizations.

    Seems to me the logical thing to do is encourage more business to come to Davis. One can argue what sort of business we want, but some sort of business Davis needs to generate more tax revenue to pay for basic services.

    Once the city is on a better fiscal footing, then it would be time to come in with more housing development to meet the needs of the employees of the new businesses.

    Typically Davis has created an anti-business atmosphere, in my opinion created by the downtown businesses who do not want any competition. That sort of attitude has generated a mediocre business core. Only recently have things picked up – after grocery stores enlarged despite zoning restrictions; Borders Books came to town despite local opposition by local bookstores, and the like.

    The Cannery property may not be suitable for high-tech business, but it ought to be appropriate for some type of business. With it could be developed appropriate housing as an adjunct. Why does it have to be either/or?

    Covell Village is a dead issue at the moment as far as I am concerned. Get the Hunts Cannery site productive first – it is the logical first choice.

  38. Voice of Reason

    A vote against Covell Village was not necessarily a vote to save ag land. I voted against Covell Village because I did not think the city should allow more housing development when it does not have the necessary funding for the accompanying infrastructure, e.g. police, fire, etc. Be careful about making such generalizations.

    Seems to me the logical thing to do is encourage more business to come to Davis. One can argue what sort of business we want, but some sort of business Davis needs to generate more tax revenue to pay for basic services.

    Once the city is on a better fiscal footing, then it would be time to come in with more housing development to meet the needs of the employees of the new businesses.

    Typically Davis has created an anti-business atmosphere, in my opinion created by the downtown businesses who do not want any competition. That sort of attitude has generated a mediocre business core. Only recently have things picked up – after grocery stores enlarged despite zoning restrictions; Borders Books came to town despite local opposition by local bookstores, and the like.

    The Cannery property may not be suitable for high-tech business, but it ought to be appropriate for some type of business. With it could be developed appropriate housing as an adjunct. Why does it have to be either/or?

    Covell Village is a dead issue at the moment as far as I am concerned. Get the Hunts Cannery site productive first – it is the logical first choice.

  39. Voice of Reason

    A vote against Covell Village was not necessarily a vote to save ag land. I voted against Covell Village because I did not think the city should allow more housing development when it does not have the necessary funding for the accompanying infrastructure, e.g. police, fire, etc. Be careful about making such generalizations.

    Seems to me the logical thing to do is encourage more business to come to Davis. One can argue what sort of business we want, but some sort of business Davis needs to generate more tax revenue to pay for basic services.

    Once the city is on a better fiscal footing, then it would be time to come in with more housing development to meet the needs of the employees of the new businesses.

    Typically Davis has created an anti-business atmosphere, in my opinion created by the downtown businesses who do not want any competition. That sort of attitude has generated a mediocre business core. Only recently have things picked up – after grocery stores enlarged despite zoning restrictions; Borders Books came to town despite local opposition by local bookstores, and the like.

    The Cannery property may not be suitable for high-tech business, but it ought to be appropriate for some type of business. With it could be developed appropriate housing as an adjunct. Why does it have to be either/or?

    Covell Village is a dead issue at the moment as far as I am concerned. Get the Hunts Cannery site productive first – it is the logical first choice.

  40. Voice of Reason

    A vote against Covell Village was not necessarily a vote to save ag land. I voted against Covell Village because I did not think the city should allow more housing development when it does not have the necessary funding for the accompanying infrastructure, e.g. police, fire, etc. Be careful about making such generalizations.

    Seems to me the logical thing to do is encourage more business to come to Davis. One can argue what sort of business we want, but some sort of business Davis needs to generate more tax revenue to pay for basic services.

    Once the city is on a better fiscal footing, then it would be time to come in with more housing development to meet the needs of the employees of the new businesses.

    Typically Davis has created an anti-business atmosphere, in my opinion created by the downtown businesses who do not want any competition. That sort of attitude has generated a mediocre business core. Only recently have things picked up – after grocery stores enlarged despite zoning restrictions; Borders Books came to town despite local opposition by local bookstores, and the like.

    The Cannery property may not be suitable for high-tech business, but it ought to be appropriate for some type of business. With it could be developed appropriate housing as an adjunct. Why does it have to be either/or?

    Covell Village is a dead issue at the moment as far as I am concerned. Get the Hunts Cannery site productive first – it is the logical first choice.

  41. Anonymous

    Vincente said…

    The housing slump argument makes no sense, we’re talking about something that would probably be completed no sooner than five years–will there still be a housing slump then? I have to doubt it.

    I’m reassured that you are so confident, Vincente. This current situation is unprecedented in CA and NO expert has predicted how or when it will land.

  42. Anonymous

    Vincente said…

    The housing slump argument makes no sense, we’re talking about something that would probably be completed no sooner than five years–will there still be a housing slump then? I have to doubt it.

    I’m reassured that you are so confident, Vincente. This current situation is unprecedented in CA and NO expert has predicted how or when it will land.

  43. Anonymous

    Vincente said…

    The housing slump argument makes no sense, we’re talking about something that would probably be completed no sooner than five years–will there still be a housing slump then? I have to doubt it.

    I’m reassured that you are so confident, Vincente. This current situation is unprecedented in CA and NO expert has predicted how or when it will land.

  44. Anonymous

    Vincente said…

    The housing slump argument makes no sense, we’re talking about something that would probably be completed no sooner than five years–will there still be a housing slump then? I have to doubt it.

    I’m reassured that you are so confident, Vincente. This current situation is unprecedented in CA and NO expert has predicted how or when it will land.

  45. Anonymous

    The cannery site is not right for a high-tech industrial park because it is too far from the freeway. There is already plenty of vacant office space along 2nd Street, plus vacant sites on 2nd near the Mace interchange, those would be the first choice for anyone thinking of starting/moving a company here or developing an office park.

  46. Anonymous

    The cannery site is not right for a high-tech industrial park because it is too far from the freeway. There is already plenty of vacant office space along 2nd Street, plus vacant sites on 2nd near the Mace interchange, those would be the first choice for anyone thinking of starting/moving a company here or developing an office park.

  47. Anonymous

    The cannery site is not right for a high-tech industrial park because it is too far from the freeway. There is already plenty of vacant office space along 2nd Street, plus vacant sites on 2nd near the Mace interchange, those would be the first choice for anyone thinking of starting/moving a company here or developing an office park.

  48. Anonymous

    The cannery site is not right for a high-tech industrial park because it is too far from the freeway. There is already plenty of vacant office space along 2nd Street, plus vacant sites on 2nd near the Mace interchange, those would be the first choice for anyone thinking of starting/moving a company here or developing an office park.

  49. Richard

    You have to give Sue Greenwald credit for focusing on larger questions about the economic strategy of the city when dealing with the Hunt Wesson property.

    Back in the day, cities actually aspired to create jobs for a significant number of their residents. And, some still do. Mission Valley in San Diego has exploited UC San Diego to develop a technology sector.

    Ideally, Davis would focus on affordable housing (not more high end housing for wealthy people, of which there is no shortage) and job creation, thus creating an integrated community where people lived and worked. (You say that people live in Davis and work at UC Davis? Maybe, still, but I have to believe that the trend is toward workers, with the exception of older faculty and administrators, commuting to the campus for work.)

    Walk on two legs, as the old saying goes, affordable housing and job opportunities in growth industries for UC Davis graduates so that they can remain in the community and create the Davis of the future.

    Unfortunately, it appears that’s not really what most Davis residents want. Neither affordable housing nor technology companies inflate the value of their homes like more, incredibly expensive homes for the wealthiest top 10 to 20 percent of the state’s population.

    The utopian vision for Hunt Wesson and Covell Center would be for a technology business center at Hunt Wesson, with affordable housing nearby in the $250,000 to $450,000 range at Covell Center (requiring densities, as I have said before, that Davis has never seen).

    But it is just that, utopian. Davis is accelerating down the road to becoming a bedroom community for well paid professionals who work in Sacramento as well as a place to live for wealthy retirees.

    It looks like an unstoppable train.

    –Richard Estes

  50. Richard

    You have to give Sue Greenwald credit for focusing on larger questions about the economic strategy of the city when dealing with the Hunt Wesson property.

    Back in the day, cities actually aspired to create jobs for a significant number of their residents. And, some still do. Mission Valley in San Diego has exploited UC San Diego to develop a technology sector.

    Ideally, Davis would focus on affordable housing (not more high end housing for wealthy people, of which there is no shortage) and job creation, thus creating an integrated community where people lived and worked. (You say that people live in Davis and work at UC Davis? Maybe, still, but I have to believe that the trend is toward workers, with the exception of older faculty and administrators, commuting to the campus for work.)

    Walk on two legs, as the old saying goes, affordable housing and job opportunities in growth industries for UC Davis graduates so that they can remain in the community and create the Davis of the future.

    Unfortunately, it appears that’s not really what most Davis residents want. Neither affordable housing nor technology companies inflate the value of their homes like more, incredibly expensive homes for the wealthiest top 10 to 20 percent of the state’s population.

    The utopian vision for Hunt Wesson and Covell Center would be for a technology business center at Hunt Wesson, with affordable housing nearby in the $250,000 to $450,000 range at Covell Center (requiring densities, as I have said before, that Davis has never seen).

    But it is just that, utopian. Davis is accelerating down the road to becoming a bedroom community for well paid professionals who work in Sacramento as well as a place to live for wealthy retirees.

    It looks like an unstoppable train.

    –Richard Estes

  51. Richard

    You have to give Sue Greenwald credit for focusing on larger questions about the economic strategy of the city when dealing with the Hunt Wesson property.

    Back in the day, cities actually aspired to create jobs for a significant number of their residents. And, some still do. Mission Valley in San Diego has exploited UC San Diego to develop a technology sector.

    Ideally, Davis would focus on affordable housing (not more high end housing for wealthy people, of which there is no shortage) and job creation, thus creating an integrated community where people lived and worked. (You say that people live in Davis and work at UC Davis? Maybe, still, but I have to believe that the trend is toward workers, with the exception of older faculty and administrators, commuting to the campus for work.)

    Walk on two legs, as the old saying goes, affordable housing and job opportunities in growth industries for UC Davis graduates so that they can remain in the community and create the Davis of the future.

    Unfortunately, it appears that’s not really what most Davis residents want. Neither affordable housing nor technology companies inflate the value of their homes like more, incredibly expensive homes for the wealthiest top 10 to 20 percent of the state’s population.

    The utopian vision for Hunt Wesson and Covell Center would be for a technology business center at Hunt Wesson, with affordable housing nearby in the $250,000 to $450,000 range at Covell Center (requiring densities, as I have said before, that Davis has never seen).

    But it is just that, utopian. Davis is accelerating down the road to becoming a bedroom community for well paid professionals who work in Sacramento as well as a place to live for wealthy retirees.

    It looks like an unstoppable train.

    –Richard Estes

  52. Richard

    You have to give Sue Greenwald credit for focusing on larger questions about the economic strategy of the city when dealing with the Hunt Wesson property.

    Back in the day, cities actually aspired to create jobs for a significant number of their residents. And, some still do. Mission Valley in San Diego has exploited UC San Diego to develop a technology sector.

    Ideally, Davis would focus on affordable housing (not more high end housing for wealthy people, of which there is no shortage) and job creation, thus creating an integrated community where people lived and worked. (You say that people live in Davis and work at UC Davis? Maybe, still, but I have to believe that the trend is toward workers, with the exception of older faculty and administrators, commuting to the campus for work.)

    Walk on two legs, as the old saying goes, affordable housing and job opportunities in growth industries for UC Davis graduates so that they can remain in the community and create the Davis of the future.

    Unfortunately, it appears that’s not really what most Davis residents want. Neither affordable housing nor technology companies inflate the value of their homes like more, incredibly expensive homes for the wealthiest top 10 to 20 percent of the state’s population.

    The utopian vision for Hunt Wesson and Covell Center would be for a technology business center at Hunt Wesson, with affordable housing nearby in the $250,000 to $450,000 range at Covell Center (requiring densities, as I have said before, that Davis has never seen).

    But it is just that, utopian. Davis is accelerating down the road to becoming a bedroom community for well paid professionals who work in Sacramento as well as a place to live for wealthy retirees.

    It looks like an unstoppable train.

    –Richard Estes

  53. Rich Rifkin

    “This current situation is unprecedented in CA and NO expert has predicted how or when it will land.”

    Housing slumps are not unprecedented in California. We had a much bigger housing slump (with far greater inventories built up) from 1990/91-1995/96. Home prices during that period fell about 20%.

    I am not sure at this point what the best use of the Hunt’s property would be. Sue explained to me convincingly (in a phone conversation a few days ago) that the big fiscal advantage for the city is with high tech, because 1) the extremely expensive equipment used in high tech in a relatively small space results in those users paying much larger property tax bills than office or housing would pay, for example, and 2) on a relative basis, high tech users would demand less in terms of police and fire services. That combination means more money into the city’s coffers and less money out.

    The Mayor also pointed out — in contradistinction to what David Greenwald wrote in his “commentary” — that there is only one property left on East Second Street suitable for a high tech development. There are a couple of others I know about on Research Park Drive.

    The problem I have with high tech or housing or any other development on the old cannery site is the traffic circulation situation. I don’t like all the traffic feeding into and out of a 100 acre property onto Covell Blvd, all at J Street. That just seems like it will be a terrible mess. It might even be worse with industry than it would be with housing, as all of the traffic would be during the morning and afternoon rush hours.

    I would much prefer that our city council, our county supervisors and our state legislators first lobby the state railroad regulators with all their might to get an at-grade crossing approved over the SP Railroad, so that traffic could exit out onto F Street, west of the cannery.

    I also think it would make sense to jointly plan the road network for the cannery project with the Covell Village land to the east, which is also zoned for industrial uses (by the county). I know the most rabid anti-Xers would get their panties all knotted up over this, but I think it would not be a bad idea to have the cannery developers build a road east out of the cannery property which ran all the way to Pole Line Road. (I doubt Mr. Whicombe would object.) That, at least, would relieve some of the pressure on Covell, right at the foot of the overpass.

    Once that was done, then we could consider housing, industry or other ideas for development.

  54. Rich Rifkin

    “This current situation is unprecedented in CA and NO expert has predicted how or when it will land.”

    Housing slumps are not unprecedented in California. We had a much bigger housing slump (with far greater inventories built up) from 1990/91-1995/96. Home prices during that period fell about 20%.

    I am not sure at this point what the best use of the Hunt’s property would be. Sue explained to me convincingly (in a phone conversation a few days ago) that the big fiscal advantage for the city is with high tech, because 1) the extremely expensive equipment used in high tech in a relatively small space results in those users paying much larger property tax bills than office or housing would pay, for example, and 2) on a relative basis, high tech users would demand less in terms of police and fire services. That combination means more money into the city’s coffers and less money out.

    The Mayor also pointed out — in contradistinction to what David Greenwald wrote in his “commentary” — that there is only one property left on East Second Street suitable for a high tech development. There are a couple of others I know about on Research Park Drive.

    The problem I have with high tech or housing or any other development on the old cannery site is the traffic circulation situation. I don’t like all the traffic feeding into and out of a 100 acre property onto Covell Blvd, all at J Street. That just seems like it will be a terrible mess. It might even be worse with industry than it would be with housing, as all of the traffic would be during the morning and afternoon rush hours.

    I would much prefer that our city council, our county supervisors and our state legislators first lobby the state railroad regulators with all their might to get an at-grade crossing approved over the SP Railroad, so that traffic could exit out onto F Street, west of the cannery.

    I also think it would make sense to jointly plan the road network for the cannery project with the Covell Village land to the east, which is also zoned for industrial uses (by the county). I know the most rabid anti-Xers would get their panties all knotted up over this, but I think it would not be a bad idea to have the cannery developers build a road east out of the cannery property which ran all the way to Pole Line Road. (I doubt Mr. Whicombe would object.) That, at least, would relieve some of the pressure on Covell, right at the foot of the overpass.

    Once that was done, then we could consider housing, industry or other ideas for development.

  55. Rich Rifkin

    “This current situation is unprecedented in CA and NO expert has predicted how or when it will land.”

    Housing slumps are not unprecedented in California. We had a much bigger housing slump (with far greater inventories built up) from 1990/91-1995/96. Home prices during that period fell about 20%.

    I am not sure at this point what the best use of the Hunt’s property would be. Sue explained to me convincingly (in a phone conversation a few days ago) that the big fiscal advantage for the city is with high tech, because 1) the extremely expensive equipment used in high tech in a relatively small space results in those users paying much larger property tax bills than office or housing would pay, for example, and 2) on a relative basis, high tech users would demand less in terms of police and fire services. That combination means more money into the city’s coffers and less money out.

    The Mayor also pointed out — in contradistinction to what David Greenwald wrote in his “commentary” — that there is only one property left on East Second Street suitable for a high tech development. There are a couple of others I know about on Research Park Drive.

    The problem I have with high tech or housing or any other development on the old cannery site is the traffic circulation situation. I don’t like all the traffic feeding into and out of a 100 acre property onto Covell Blvd, all at J Street. That just seems like it will be a terrible mess. It might even be worse with industry than it would be with housing, as all of the traffic would be during the morning and afternoon rush hours.

    I would much prefer that our city council, our county supervisors and our state legislators first lobby the state railroad regulators with all their might to get an at-grade crossing approved over the SP Railroad, so that traffic could exit out onto F Street, west of the cannery.

    I also think it would make sense to jointly plan the road network for the cannery project with the Covell Village land to the east, which is also zoned for industrial uses (by the county). I know the most rabid anti-Xers would get their panties all knotted up over this, but I think it would not be a bad idea to have the cannery developers build a road east out of the cannery property which ran all the way to Pole Line Road. (I doubt Mr. Whicombe would object.) That, at least, would relieve some of the pressure on Covell, right at the foot of the overpass.

    Once that was done, then we could consider housing, industry or other ideas for development.

  56. Rich Rifkin

    “This current situation is unprecedented in CA and NO expert has predicted how or when it will land.”

    Housing slumps are not unprecedented in California. We had a much bigger housing slump (with far greater inventories built up) from 1990/91-1995/96. Home prices during that period fell about 20%.

    I am not sure at this point what the best use of the Hunt’s property would be. Sue explained to me convincingly (in a phone conversation a few days ago) that the big fiscal advantage for the city is with high tech, because 1) the extremely expensive equipment used in high tech in a relatively small space results in those users paying much larger property tax bills than office or housing would pay, for example, and 2) on a relative basis, high tech users would demand less in terms of police and fire services. That combination means more money into the city’s coffers and less money out.

    The Mayor also pointed out — in contradistinction to what David Greenwald wrote in his “commentary” — that there is only one property left on East Second Street suitable for a high tech development. There are a couple of others I know about on Research Park Drive.

    The problem I have with high tech or housing or any other development on the old cannery site is the traffic circulation situation. I don’t like all the traffic feeding into and out of a 100 acre property onto Covell Blvd, all at J Street. That just seems like it will be a terrible mess. It might even be worse with industry than it would be with housing, as all of the traffic would be during the morning and afternoon rush hours.

    I would much prefer that our city council, our county supervisors and our state legislators first lobby the state railroad regulators with all their might to get an at-grade crossing approved over the SP Railroad, so that traffic could exit out onto F Street, west of the cannery.

    I also think it would make sense to jointly plan the road network for the cannery project with the Covell Village land to the east, which is also zoned for industrial uses (by the county). I know the most rabid anti-Xers would get their panties all knotted up over this, but I think it would not be a bad idea to have the cannery developers build a road east out of the cannery property which ran all the way to Pole Line Road. (I doubt Mr. Whicombe would object.) That, at least, would relieve some of the pressure on Covell, right at the foot of the overpass.

    Once that was done, then we could consider housing, industry or other ideas for development.

  57. Anonymous

    This housing slump hasn’t ended yet so we don’t know how bad it will be until its over. One has to wonder if the scale of this downturn will be worse than the 90’s due to all the problems associated with the housing bubble of the last few years. Still Davis seems to be weathering things pretty well so far. So far being the operative phrase.

  58. Anonymous

    This housing slump hasn’t ended yet so we don’t know how bad it will be until its over. One has to wonder if the scale of this downturn will be worse than the 90’s due to all the problems associated with the housing bubble of the last few years. Still Davis seems to be weathering things pretty well so far. So far being the operative phrase.

  59. Anonymous

    This housing slump hasn’t ended yet so we don’t know how bad it will be until its over. One has to wonder if the scale of this downturn will be worse than the 90’s due to all the problems associated with the housing bubble of the last few years. Still Davis seems to be weathering things pretty well so far. So far being the operative phrase.

  60. Anonymous

    This housing slump hasn’t ended yet so we don’t know how bad it will be until its over. One has to wonder if the scale of this downturn will be worse than the 90’s due to all the problems associated with the housing bubble of the last few years. Still Davis seems to be weathering things pretty well so far. So far being the operative phrase.

  61. Anonymous

    Why not make developing a good road exit north out of the Hunt-Wessen property and contributing to the improvement of the County road that then goes East into Poleline a part of the developer’s agreement on this property? Going directly East through the CV property is not the only option.

  62. Anonymous

    Why not make developing a good road exit north out of the Hunt-Wessen property and contributing to the improvement of the County road that then goes East into Poleline a part of the developer’s agreement on this property? Going directly East through the CV property is not the only option.

  63. Anonymous

    Why not make developing a good road exit north out of the Hunt-Wessen property and contributing to the improvement of the County road that then goes East into Poleline a part of the developer’s agreement on this property? Going directly East through the CV property is not the only option.

  64. Anonymous

    Why not make developing a good road exit north out of the Hunt-Wessen property and contributing to the improvement of the County road that then goes East into Poleline a part of the developer’s agreement on this property? Going directly East through the CV property is not the only option.

  65. Sharla

    Rich,
    The at-grade crossing to allow another way to access the Lewis neighborhood is a good idea, except that the railroad is apparently not allowing these anymore. An example is the desparate need for a crossing from the eastern end of Olive Drive to L Street to provide a safer route for the kids and others who are crossing the multiple tracks every day to get to school, etc. at that location. The railroad wants to put up a fence to stop this practice, but you know how that will go. The City is still working getting permission to resolve this incredibly dangerous route to school.

  66. Sharla

    Rich,
    The at-grade crossing to allow another way to access the Lewis neighborhood is a good idea, except that the railroad is apparently not allowing these anymore. An example is the desparate need for a crossing from the eastern end of Olive Drive to L Street to provide a safer route for the kids and others who are crossing the multiple tracks every day to get to school, etc. at that location. The railroad wants to put up a fence to stop this practice, but you know how that will go. The City is still working getting permission to resolve this incredibly dangerous route to school.

  67. Sharla

    Rich,
    The at-grade crossing to allow another way to access the Lewis neighborhood is a good idea, except that the railroad is apparently not allowing these anymore. An example is the desparate need for a crossing from the eastern end of Olive Drive to L Street to provide a safer route for the kids and others who are crossing the multiple tracks every day to get to school, etc. at that location. The railroad wants to put up a fence to stop this practice, but you know how that will go. The City is still working getting permission to resolve this incredibly dangerous route to school.

  68. Sharla

    Rich,
    The at-grade crossing to allow another way to access the Lewis neighborhood is a good idea, except that the railroad is apparently not allowing these anymore. An example is the desparate need for a crossing from the eastern end of Olive Drive to L Street to provide a safer route for the kids and others who are crossing the multiple tracks every day to get to school, etc. at that location. The railroad wants to put up a fence to stop this practice, but you know how that will go. The City is still working getting permission to resolve this incredibly dangerous route to school.

  69. Rich Rifkin

    “Why not make developing a good road exit north out of the Hunt-Wessen property and contributing to the improvement of the County road that then goes East into Poleline a part of the developer’s agreement on this property?”

    For Davis drivers, that’s impractical. The county road you to the north, Road 29, is 2 miles from Covell Blvd. If someone were going to Woodland, they might use your suggested route. But if someone wanted to get from Cannery Park to South Davis, for example, no way would he drive two miles north to Road 29, almost a mile east to Pole Line Road and then two miles south back to Covell Blvd.

    But if he could drive east out of Cannery Park over to where Donner Drive meets Pole Line Road, he would lose no time at all in his trip to South Davis. That would relieve a lot of the congestion on the Covell-J Street area that a Cannery Park development will cause.

    Sharla: “The at-grade crossing to allow another way to access the Lewis neighborhood is a good idea, except that the railroad is apparently not allowing these anymore.”

    That’s not quite right. The railroads don’t determine whether a new at-grade crossing will or will not be allowed. That is the responsibility of the California Public Utilities Commission.

    And while the PUC has been reticent to approve new crossings, it is incorrect to say they won’t approve any new ones. On a track with as little traffic as the one which parallel’s F Street, a new crossing would be viewed far more favorably than one which is heavily trafficked (such as the tracks between L Street and Olive Drive). What needs to happen to convince the PUC to permit an at-grade crossing west of Cannery Park is to have all of our city council, supervisors and state legislators on board, all arguing for its necessity.

    FWIW, this comes from the State of California’s website on railroad crossings:

    The Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Branch oversees the safety of all public and private highway-rail crossings. PUC authorizes construction of new atgrade highway-rail crossings (where roads and tracks intersect at the same level) and construction of grade separations (underpasses or overheads where train tracks are above or below the roadway). PUC staff reviews proposals for crossings, investigates deficiencies of warning devices or other safety features at existing at-grade crossings and recommends engineering improvements to prevent accidents.

    The state provides $15 million from the State Highway Account (SHA) annually to fund grade separation projects. Before these funds are allocated, local agency projects must be reviewed and ranked by PUC and reviewed and authorized by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

    State law requires PUC to approve all new at-grade crossings and modifications to existing crossings, including rail crossings on state and local roadways. PUC staff identifies about 100 crossings annually for review based on their hazard potential, using PUC’s database to identify crossings with multiple accidents, as well as input from local agencies and railroads. After a diagnostic review, each crossing receives a priority ranking based on several factors, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Accident Prediction Formula. PUC staff provides the final priority list of 20 to 30 crossings to Caltrans. [2]

    Caltrans’ Rail Crossing Safety & Track Branch reviews the list of eligible projects. Caltrans authorizes the local agencies to begin project development and obtain required funding. If all requirements are met, Caltrans enters into contracts with the railroads and local agencies to improve the crossings. [3]

    According to PUC, the process has been streamlined so that if no problems or conflicts concerning potential impacts at the proposed sites are identified, the applications are reviewed and then approved. If conflicts are identified, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is assigned and public hearings are held. According to PUC staff, this process is required for about 5 percent of the applications filed. The ALJ issues a decision and PUC adopts a final priority list that is then forwarded to Caltrans for review and processing. After review, Caltrans allocates the funds and administers the contracts. [4]

    PUC’s concerns are that the reviews should focus on safety considerations, safety considerations should drive the prioritization of the projects, and rail crossings at state and local roadways should be reviewed and approved by the same entity. PUC also indicated that the standards used at all rail crossings should be uniform.

  70. Rich Rifkin

    “Why not make developing a good road exit north out of the Hunt-Wessen property and contributing to the improvement of the County road that then goes East into Poleline a part of the developer’s agreement on this property?”

    For Davis drivers, that’s impractical. The county road you to the north, Road 29, is 2 miles from Covell Blvd. If someone were going to Woodland, they might use your suggested route. But if someone wanted to get from Cannery Park to South Davis, for example, no way would he drive two miles north to Road 29, almost a mile east to Pole Line Road and then two miles south back to Covell Blvd.

    But if he could drive east out of Cannery Park over to where Donner Drive meets Pole Line Road, he would lose no time at all in his trip to South Davis. That would relieve a lot of the congestion on the Covell-J Street area that a Cannery Park development will cause.

    Sharla: “The at-grade crossing to allow another way to access the Lewis neighborhood is a good idea, except that the railroad is apparently not allowing these anymore.”

    That’s not quite right. The railroads don’t determine whether a new at-grade crossing will or will not be allowed. That is the responsibility of the California Public Utilities Commission.

    And while the PUC has been reticent to approve new crossings, it is incorrect to say they won’t approve any new ones. On a track with as little traffic as the one which parallel’s F Street, a new crossing would be viewed far more favorably than one which is heavily trafficked (such as the tracks between L Street and Olive Drive). What needs to happen to convince the PUC to permit an at-grade crossing west of Cannery Park is to have all of our city council, supervisors and state legislators on board, all arguing for its necessity.

    FWIW, this comes from the State of California’s website on railroad crossings:

    The Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Branch oversees the safety of all public and private highway-rail crossings. PUC authorizes construction of new atgrade highway-rail crossings (where roads and tracks intersect at the same level) and construction of grade separations (underpasses or overheads where train tracks are above or below the roadway). PUC staff reviews proposals for crossings, investigates deficiencies of warning devices or other safety features at existing at-grade crossings and recommends engineering improvements to prevent accidents.

    The state provides $15 million from the State Highway Account (SHA) annually to fund grade separation projects. Before these funds are allocated, local agency projects must be reviewed and ranked by PUC and reviewed and authorized by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

    State law requires PUC to approve all new at-grade crossings and modifications to existing crossings, including rail crossings on state and local roadways. PUC staff identifies about 100 crossings annually for review based on their hazard potential, using PUC’s database to identify crossings with multiple accidents, as well as input from local agencies and railroads. After a diagnostic review, each crossing receives a priority ranking based on several factors, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Accident Prediction Formula. PUC staff provides the final priority list of 20 to 30 crossings to Caltrans. [2]

    Caltrans’ Rail Crossing Safety & Track Branch reviews the list of eligible projects. Caltrans authorizes the local agencies to begin project development and obtain required funding. If all requirements are met, Caltrans enters into contracts with the railroads and local agencies to improve the crossings. [3]

    According to PUC, the process has been streamlined so that if no problems or conflicts concerning potential impacts at the proposed sites are identified, the applications are reviewed and then approved. If conflicts are identified, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is assigned and public hearings are held. According to PUC staff, this process is required for about 5 percent of the applications filed. The ALJ issues a decision and PUC adopts a final priority list that is then forwarded to Caltrans for review and processing. After review, Caltrans allocates the funds and administers the contracts. [4]

    PUC’s concerns are that the reviews should focus on safety considerations, safety considerations should drive the prioritization of the projects, and rail crossings at state and local roadways should be reviewed and approved by the same entity. PUC also indicated that the standards used at all rail crossings should be uniform.

  71. Rich Rifkin

    “Why not make developing a good road exit north out of the Hunt-Wessen property and contributing to the improvement of the County road that then goes East into Poleline a part of the developer’s agreement on this property?”

    For Davis drivers, that’s impractical. The county road you to the north, Road 29, is 2 miles from Covell Blvd. If someone were going to Woodland, they might use your suggested route. But if someone wanted to get from Cannery Park to South Davis, for example, no way would he drive two miles north to Road 29, almost a mile east to Pole Line Road and then two miles south back to Covell Blvd.

    But if he could drive east out of Cannery Park over to where Donner Drive meets Pole Line Road, he would lose no time at all in his trip to South Davis. That would relieve a lot of the congestion on the Covell-J Street area that a Cannery Park development will cause.

    Sharla: “The at-grade crossing to allow another way to access the Lewis neighborhood is a good idea, except that the railroad is apparently not allowing these anymore.”

    That’s not quite right. The railroads don’t determine whether a new at-grade crossing will or will not be allowed. That is the responsibility of the California Public Utilities Commission.

    And while the PUC has been reticent to approve new crossings, it is incorrect to say they won’t approve any new ones. On a track with as little traffic as the one which parallel’s F Street, a new crossing would be viewed far more favorably than one which is heavily trafficked (such as the tracks between L Street and Olive Drive). What needs to happen to convince the PUC to permit an at-grade crossing west of Cannery Park is to have all of our city council, supervisors and state legislators on board, all arguing for its necessity.

    FWIW, this comes from the State of California’s website on railroad crossings:

    The Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Branch oversees the safety of all public and private highway-rail crossings. PUC authorizes construction of new atgrade highway-rail crossings (where roads and tracks intersect at the same level) and construction of grade separations (underpasses or overheads where train tracks are above or below the roadway). PUC staff reviews proposals for crossings, investigates deficiencies of warning devices or other safety features at existing at-grade crossings and recommends engineering improvements to prevent accidents.

    The state provides $15 million from the State Highway Account (SHA) annually to fund grade separation projects. Before these funds are allocated, local agency projects must be reviewed and ranked by PUC and reviewed and authorized by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

    State law requires PUC to approve all new at-grade crossings and modifications to existing crossings, including rail crossings on state and local roadways. PUC staff identifies about 100 crossings annually for review based on their hazard potential, using PUC’s database to identify crossings with multiple accidents, as well as input from local agencies and railroads. After a diagnostic review, each crossing receives a priority ranking based on several factors, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Accident Prediction Formula. PUC staff provides the final priority list of 20 to 30 crossings to Caltrans. [2]

    Caltrans’ Rail Crossing Safety & Track Branch reviews the list of eligible projects. Caltrans authorizes the local agencies to begin project development and obtain required funding. If all requirements are met, Caltrans enters into contracts with the railroads and local agencies to improve the crossings. [3]

    According to PUC, the process has been streamlined so that if no problems or conflicts concerning potential impacts at the proposed sites are identified, the applications are reviewed and then approved. If conflicts are identified, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is assigned and public hearings are held. According to PUC staff, this process is required for about 5 percent of the applications filed. The ALJ issues a decision and PUC adopts a final priority list that is then forwarded to Caltrans for review and processing. After review, Caltrans allocates the funds and administers the contracts. [4]

    PUC’s concerns are that the reviews should focus on safety considerations, safety considerations should drive the prioritization of the projects, and rail crossings at state and local roadways should be reviewed and approved by the same entity. PUC also indicated that the standards used at all rail crossings should be uniform.

  72. Rich Rifkin

    “Why not make developing a good road exit north out of the Hunt-Wessen property and contributing to the improvement of the County road that then goes East into Poleline a part of the developer’s agreement on this property?”

    For Davis drivers, that’s impractical. The county road you to the north, Road 29, is 2 miles from Covell Blvd. If someone were going to Woodland, they might use your suggested route. But if someone wanted to get from Cannery Park to South Davis, for example, no way would he drive two miles north to Road 29, almost a mile east to Pole Line Road and then two miles south back to Covell Blvd.

    But if he could drive east out of Cannery Park over to where Donner Drive meets Pole Line Road, he would lose no time at all in his trip to South Davis. That would relieve a lot of the congestion on the Covell-J Street area that a Cannery Park development will cause.

    Sharla: “The at-grade crossing to allow another way to access the Lewis neighborhood is a good idea, except that the railroad is apparently not allowing these anymore.”

    That’s not quite right. The railroads don’t determine whether a new at-grade crossing will or will not be allowed. That is the responsibility of the California Public Utilities Commission.

    And while the PUC has been reticent to approve new crossings, it is incorrect to say they won’t approve any new ones. On a track with as little traffic as the one which parallel’s F Street, a new crossing would be viewed far more favorably than one which is heavily trafficked (such as the tracks between L Street and Olive Drive). What needs to happen to convince the PUC to permit an at-grade crossing west of Cannery Park is to have all of our city council, supervisors and state legislators on board, all arguing for its necessity.

    FWIW, this comes from the State of California’s website on railroad crossings:

    The Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Branch oversees the safety of all public and private highway-rail crossings. PUC authorizes construction of new atgrade highway-rail crossings (where roads and tracks intersect at the same level) and construction of grade separations (underpasses or overheads where train tracks are above or below the roadway). PUC staff reviews proposals for crossings, investigates deficiencies of warning devices or other safety features at existing at-grade crossings and recommends engineering improvements to prevent accidents.

    The state provides $15 million from the State Highway Account (SHA) annually to fund grade separation projects. Before these funds are allocated, local agency projects must be reviewed and ranked by PUC and reviewed and authorized by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

    State law requires PUC to approve all new at-grade crossings and modifications to existing crossings, including rail crossings on state and local roadways. PUC staff identifies about 100 crossings annually for review based on their hazard potential, using PUC’s database to identify crossings with multiple accidents, as well as input from local agencies and railroads. After a diagnostic review, each crossing receives a priority ranking based on several factors, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Accident Prediction Formula. PUC staff provides the final priority list of 20 to 30 crossings to Caltrans. [2]

    Caltrans’ Rail Crossing Safety & Track Branch reviews the list of eligible projects. Caltrans authorizes the local agencies to begin project development and obtain required funding. If all requirements are met, Caltrans enters into contracts with the railroads and local agencies to improve the crossings. [3]

    According to PUC, the process has been streamlined so that if no problems or conflicts concerning potential impacts at the proposed sites are identified, the applications are reviewed and then approved. If conflicts are identified, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is assigned and public hearings are held. According to PUC staff, this process is required for about 5 percent of the applications filed. The ALJ issues a decision and PUC adopts a final priority list that is then forwarded to Caltrans for review and processing. After review, Caltrans allocates the funds and administers the contracts. [4]

    PUC’s concerns are that the reviews should focus on safety considerations, safety considerations should drive the prioritization of the projects, and rail crossings at state and local roadways should be reviewed and approved by the same entity. PUC also indicated that the standards used at all rail crossings should be uniform.

  73. Sue Greenwald

    1) I thought DPD (David Greenwald, no relation to me) was going to leave the council reporting to Simon, since David’s wife, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald is running for council, and he has a clear conflict of interest when reporting on council issues.

    2) The Hunt Wesson is an attractive site for a high tech. I have talked quite extensively with both high tech established and start-up business owners, with tech park developers and with real estate agents looking for sites for high tech business, and they all have said that the Hunt Wesson would be an attractive site for them.

    3) Land speculators make more selling their land for housing instead of high tech. They will never sell their land for high tech as long as council gives them the impression that they can get the zoning changed to housing. If we give them reason to believe that the zoning will change, they will just sit on the land and wait it out. This is why the land has remained vacant.

    4) We have very little viable high-tech zoned land outside of the Cannery.

    While there are currently many scattered plots of land designated high tech/industrial around South Davis and Mace Ranch, they are either small, polluted, poorly situated, oddly shaped, or inaccessible.

    An excellent high tech company is currently in the process of purchasing a parcel in Mace Ranch. Their agent told me that he was dealing with one of only two parcels that were suitable. If the land were not already zoned and available, he would have gone to West Sacramento. I asked him for his assessment of the Hunt-Wesson property, and he said he thought it would be very exciting for the high tech clients he deals with.

    5) To me, smart planning means building jobs close to housing. I envision an attractive business park that allows many people to bike to work. If we build housing on the Hunt Wesson, I fear Davis will become a typical bedroom suburb, with mile after mile of housing developments, and residents who commute to West Sacramento or a future huge business park in the county by the by-pass. I think we have a unique opportunity to plan for smarter growth by keeping the Hunt Wesson zoned high tech.

    It seems to me that standing firm and keeping this property zoned high/tech should be a key component in our climate protection/sustainability program.

  74. Sue Greenwald

    1) I thought DPD (David Greenwald, no relation to me) was going to leave the council reporting to Simon, since David’s wife, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald is running for council, and he has a clear conflict of interest when reporting on council issues.

    2) The Hunt Wesson is an attractive site for a high tech. I have talked quite extensively with both high tech established and start-up business owners, with tech park developers and with real estate agents looking for sites for high tech business, and they all have said that the Hunt Wesson would be an attractive site for them.

    3) Land speculators make more selling their land for housing instead of high tech. They will never sell their land for high tech as long as council gives them the impression that they can get the zoning changed to housing. If we give them reason to believe that the zoning will change, they will just sit on the land and wait it out. This is why the land has remained vacant.

    4) We have very little viable high-tech zoned land outside of the Cannery.

    While there are currently many scattered plots of land designated high tech/industrial around South Davis and Mace Ranch, they are either small, polluted, poorly situated, oddly shaped, or inaccessible.

    An excellent high tech company is currently in the process of purchasing a parcel in Mace Ranch. Their agent told me that he was dealing with one of only two parcels that were suitable. If the land were not already zoned and available, he would have gone to West Sacramento. I asked him for his assessment of the Hunt-Wesson property, and he said he thought it would be very exciting for the high tech clients he deals with.

    5) To me, smart planning means building jobs close to housing. I envision an attractive business park that allows many people to bike to work. If we build housing on the Hunt Wesson, I fear Davis will become a typical bedroom suburb, with mile after mile of housing developments, and residents who commute to West Sacramento or a future huge business park in the county by the by-pass. I think we have a unique opportunity to plan for smarter growth by keeping the Hunt Wesson zoned high tech.

    It seems to me that standing firm and keeping this property zoned high/tech should be a key component in our climate protection/sustainability program.

  75. Sue Greenwald

    1) I thought DPD (David Greenwald, no relation to me) was going to leave the council reporting to Simon, since David’s wife, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald is running for council, and he has a clear conflict of interest when reporting on council issues.

    2) The Hunt Wesson is an attractive site for a high tech. I have talked quite extensively with both high tech established and start-up business owners, with tech park developers and with real estate agents looking for sites for high tech business, and they all have said that the Hunt Wesson would be an attractive site for them.

    3) Land speculators make more selling their land for housing instead of high tech. They will never sell their land for high tech as long as council gives them the impression that they can get the zoning changed to housing. If we give them reason to believe that the zoning will change, they will just sit on the land and wait it out. This is why the land has remained vacant.

    4) We have very little viable high-tech zoned land outside of the Cannery.

    While there are currently many scattered plots of land designated high tech/industrial around South Davis and Mace Ranch, they are either small, polluted, poorly situated, oddly shaped, or inaccessible.

    An excellent high tech company is currently in the process of purchasing a parcel in Mace Ranch. Their agent told me that he was dealing with one of only two parcels that were suitable. If the land were not already zoned and available, he would have gone to West Sacramento. I asked him for his assessment of the Hunt-Wesson property, and he said he thought it would be very exciting for the high tech clients he deals with.

    5) To me, smart planning means building jobs close to housing. I envision an attractive business park that allows many people to bike to work. If we build housing on the Hunt Wesson, I fear Davis will become a typical bedroom suburb, with mile after mile of housing developments, and residents who commute to West Sacramento or a future huge business park in the county by the by-pass. I think we have a unique opportunity to plan for smarter growth by keeping the Hunt Wesson zoned high tech.

    It seems to me that standing firm and keeping this property zoned high/tech should be a key component in our climate protection/sustainability program.

  76. Sue Greenwald

    1) I thought DPD (David Greenwald, no relation to me) was going to leave the council reporting to Simon, since David’s wife, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald is running for council, and he has a clear conflict of interest when reporting on council issues.

    2) The Hunt Wesson is an attractive site for a high tech. I have talked quite extensively with both high tech established and start-up business owners, with tech park developers and with real estate agents looking for sites for high tech business, and they all have said that the Hunt Wesson would be an attractive site for them.

    3) Land speculators make more selling their land for housing instead of high tech. They will never sell their land for high tech as long as council gives them the impression that they can get the zoning changed to housing. If we give them reason to believe that the zoning will change, they will just sit on the land and wait it out. This is why the land has remained vacant.

    4) We have very little viable high-tech zoned land outside of the Cannery.

    While there are currently many scattered plots of land designated high tech/industrial around South Davis and Mace Ranch, they are either small, polluted, poorly situated, oddly shaped, or inaccessible.

    An excellent high tech company is currently in the process of purchasing a parcel in Mace Ranch. Their agent told me that he was dealing with one of only two parcels that were suitable. If the land were not already zoned and available, he would have gone to West Sacramento. I asked him for his assessment of the Hunt-Wesson property, and he said he thought it would be very exciting for the high tech clients he deals with.

    5) To me, smart planning means building jobs close to housing. I envision an attractive business park that allows many people to bike to work. If we build housing on the Hunt Wesson, I fear Davis will become a typical bedroom suburb, with mile after mile of housing developments, and residents who commute to West Sacramento or a future huge business park in the county by the by-pass. I think we have a unique opportunity to plan for smarter growth by keeping the Hunt Wesson zoned high tech.

    It seems to me that standing firm and keeping this property zoned high/tech should be a key component in our climate protection/sustainability program.

  77. sharla

    Rich,
    That’s all very fine and good, but in actual practice crossings are viewed as dangerous and are not being approved. If we are going to spend time pushing through a crossing, then the priority is Olive Drive to L Street and not one that currently goes to nowhere.

  78. sharla

    Rich,
    That’s all very fine and good, but in actual practice crossings are viewed as dangerous and are not being approved. If we are going to spend time pushing through a crossing, then the priority is Olive Drive to L Street and not one that currently goes to nowhere.

  79. sharla

    Rich,
    That’s all very fine and good, but in actual practice crossings are viewed as dangerous and are not being approved. If we are going to spend time pushing through a crossing, then the priority is Olive Drive to L Street and not one that currently goes to nowhere.

  80. sharla

    Rich,
    That’s all very fine and good, but in actual practice crossings are viewed as dangerous and are not being approved. If we are going to spend time pushing through a crossing, then the priority is Olive Drive to L Street and not one that currently goes to nowhere.

  81. campaign watcher

    Sue, Simon was involved in the writing of the article. What’s more, DPD can write whatever he wishes – this is his blog. Please don’t start up again with the Greenwald/Escamilla-Greenwald confusion issue.

  82. campaign watcher

    Sue, Simon was involved in the writing of the article. What’s more, DPD can write whatever he wishes – this is his blog. Please don’t start up again with the Greenwald/Escamilla-Greenwald confusion issue.

  83. campaign watcher

    Sue, Simon was involved in the writing of the article. What’s more, DPD can write whatever he wishes – this is his blog. Please don’t start up again with the Greenwald/Escamilla-Greenwald confusion issue.

  84. campaign watcher

    Sue, Simon was involved in the writing of the article. What’s more, DPD can write whatever he wishes – this is his blog. Please don’t start up again with the Greenwald/Escamilla-Greenwald confusion issue.

  85. Rich Rifkin

    “That’s all very fine and good, but in actual practice crossings are viewed as dangerous and are not being approved.”

    Sharla, what is your source for this claim? I am not saying you are wrong — I was told the same thing by Helen Thomson — but I have to wonder if this is not just hyperbole.

    Also, you need to compare the train traffic on the east-west tracks near Olive Drive to the traffic on the north-south tracks next to the cannery. They simply don’t compare. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I would guess that there are fewer than 4 trains a day which pass by the cannery tracks, while I would guess there are around 20 each day which pass by Olive Drive. So the level of danger is much, much greater where you would like an at-grade crossing. Furthermore, because thousands of Davis drivers use Covell Blvd every day — while Olive Drive is far less trafficked — the benefits to Davis from an at-grade crossing near the cannery is much, much greater, insofar as that would relieve Covell problems.

  86. Rich Rifkin

    “That’s all very fine and good, but in actual practice crossings are viewed as dangerous and are not being approved.”

    Sharla, what is your source for this claim? I am not saying you are wrong — I was told the same thing by Helen Thomson — but I have to wonder if this is not just hyperbole.

    Also, you need to compare the train traffic on the east-west tracks near Olive Drive to the traffic on the north-south tracks next to the cannery. They simply don’t compare. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I would guess that there are fewer than 4 trains a day which pass by the cannery tracks, while I would guess there are around 20 each day which pass by Olive Drive. So the level of danger is much, much greater where you would like an at-grade crossing. Furthermore, because thousands of Davis drivers use Covell Blvd every day — while Olive Drive is far less trafficked — the benefits to Davis from an at-grade crossing near the cannery is much, much greater, insofar as that would relieve Covell problems.

  87. Rich Rifkin

    “That’s all very fine and good, but in actual practice crossings are viewed as dangerous and are not being approved.”

    Sharla, what is your source for this claim? I am not saying you are wrong — I was told the same thing by Helen Thomson — but I have to wonder if this is not just hyperbole.

    Also, you need to compare the train traffic on the east-west tracks near Olive Drive to the traffic on the north-south tracks next to the cannery. They simply don’t compare. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I would guess that there are fewer than 4 trains a day which pass by the cannery tracks, while I would guess there are around 20 each day which pass by Olive Drive. So the level of danger is much, much greater where you would like an at-grade crossing. Furthermore, because thousands of Davis drivers use Covell Blvd every day — while Olive Drive is far less trafficked — the benefits to Davis from an at-grade crossing near the cannery is much, much greater, insofar as that would relieve Covell problems.

  88. Rich Rifkin

    “That’s all very fine and good, but in actual practice crossings are viewed as dangerous and are not being approved.”

    Sharla, what is your source for this claim? I am not saying you are wrong — I was told the same thing by Helen Thomson — but I have to wonder if this is not just hyperbole.

    Also, you need to compare the train traffic on the east-west tracks near Olive Drive to the traffic on the north-south tracks next to the cannery. They simply don’t compare. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I would guess that there are fewer than 4 trains a day which pass by the cannery tracks, while I would guess there are around 20 each day which pass by Olive Drive. So the level of danger is much, much greater where you would like an at-grade crossing. Furthermore, because thousands of Davis drivers use Covell Blvd every day — while Olive Drive is far less trafficked — the benefits to Davis from an at-grade crossing near the cannery is much, much greater, insofar as that would relieve Covell problems.

  89. Anonymous

    Why does it matter what David’s wife is doing? He didn’t criticize you, Sue. He simply disagreed with you. Isn’t that his right? Lamar Heystek disagreed with you. I got emails from Eileen Samitz and Pam Nieberg that they disagree with you. Why can’t David?

  90. Anonymous

    Why does it matter what David’s wife is doing? He didn’t criticize you, Sue. He simply disagreed with you. Isn’t that his right? Lamar Heystek disagreed with you. I got emails from Eileen Samitz and Pam Nieberg that they disagree with you. Why can’t David?

  91. Anonymous

    Why does it matter what David’s wife is doing? He didn’t criticize you, Sue. He simply disagreed with you. Isn’t that his right? Lamar Heystek disagreed with you. I got emails from Eileen Samitz and Pam Nieberg that they disagree with you. Why can’t David?

  92. Anonymous

    Why does it matter what David’s wife is doing? He didn’t criticize you, Sue. He simply disagreed with you. Isn’t that his right? Lamar Heystek disagreed with you. I got emails from Eileen Samitz and Pam Nieberg that they disagree with you. Why can’t David?

  93. Doug Paul Davis

    “Sharla, what is your source for this claim?”

    Rich,

    She was at the city-school district two-by-two last month and the issue was discussed at that time. What she said is verbatim what was said at that meeting.

  94. Doug Paul Davis

    “Sharla, what is your source for this claim?”

    Rich,

    She was at the city-school district two-by-two last month and the issue was discussed at that time. What she said is verbatim what was said at that meeting.

  95. Doug Paul Davis

    “Sharla, what is your source for this claim?”

    Rich,

    She was at the city-school district two-by-two last month and the issue was discussed at that time. What she said is verbatim what was said at that meeting.

  96. Doug Paul Davis

    “Sharla, what is your source for this claim?”

    Rich,

    She was at the city-school district two-by-two last month and the issue was discussed at that time. What she said is verbatim what was said at that meeting.

  97. Richard

    no one is saying that DPD can’t write whatever he wishes

    but, people can likewise note that he is writing about council issues at the same time his wife is running for council

    and, people can draw their own conclusions based upon what transpires

    isn’t that what blogs are for?

    –Richard Estes

  98. Richard

    no one is saying that DPD can’t write whatever he wishes

    but, people can likewise note that he is writing about council issues at the same time his wife is running for council

    and, people can draw their own conclusions based upon what transpires

    isn’t that what blogs are for?

    –Richard Estes

  99. Richard

    no one is saying that DPD can’t write whatever he wishes

    but, people can likewise note that he is writing about council issues at the same time his wife is running for council

    and, people can draw their own conclusions based upon what transpires

    isn’t that what blogs are for?

    –Richard Estes

  100. Richard

    no one is saying that DPD can’t write whatever he wishes

    but, people can likewise note that he is writing about council issues at the same time his wife is running for council

    and, people can draw their own conclusions based upon what transpires

    isn’t that what blogs are for?

    –Richard Estes

  101. william k.

    “Editor’s note: My wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald has been considering a run for the Davis City Council. In order to avoid appearance of a conflict of interest, Doug Paul Davis will not be covering the Davis City Council campaign and instead, will have at some point another permanent writer who will specifically cover the city council election if she launches a formal candidacy.” — DPD

    DPD did not say he would not cover the city council. He said he would not cover the city council election.

  102. william k.

    “Editor’s note: My wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald has been considering a run for the Davis City Council. In order to avoid appearance of a conflict of interest, Doug Paul Davis will not be covering the Davis City Council campaign and instead, will have at some point another permanent writer who will specifically cover the city council election if she launches a formal candidacy.” — DPD

    DPD did not say he would not cover the city council. He said he would not cover the city council election.

  103. william k.

    “Editor’s note: My wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald has been considering a run for the Davis City Council. In order to avoid appearance of a conflict of interest, Doug Paul Davis will not be covering the Davis City Council campaign and instead, will have at some point another permanent writer who will specifically cover the city council election if she launches a formal candidacy.” — DPD

    DPD did not say he would not cover the city council. He said he would not cover the city council election.

  104. william k.

    “Editor’s note: My wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald has been considering a run for the Davis City Council. In order to avoid appearance of a conflict of interest, Doug Paul Davis will not be covering the Davis City Council campaign and instead, will have at some point another permanent writer who will specifically cover the city council election if she launches a formal candidacy.” — DPD

    DPD did not say he would not cover the city council. He said he would not cover the city council election.

  105. Anonymous

    The mayor is absolutely correct- the property is zoned correctly and should remain industrial. The only reason it has not been developed is because Lewis Homes has blocked every effort to do so.

    They demolished hundreds of thousands of feet of buildings in excellent condition apparently to prevent a proposal (presented to City) to reuse those facilities for a Green Energy Park. There was absolutely no other justification for the demolition of those fully functional buildings.

    The city should sit tight and when Lewis finally gets tired of squatting on the property, they will sell to developers who are willing to actually work with the city within the industrial zoning.

  106. Anonymous

    The mayor is absolutely correct- the property is zoned correctly and should remain industrial. The only reason it has not been developed is because Lewis Homes has blocked every effort to do so.

    They demolished hundreds of thousands of feet of buildings in excellent condition apparently to prevent a proposal (presented to City) to reuse those facilities for a Green Energy Park. There was absolutely no other justification for the demolition of those fully functional buildings.

    The city should sit tight and when Lewis finally gets tired of squatting on the property, they will sell to developers who are willing to actually work with the city within the industrial zoning.

  107. Anonymous

    The mayor is absolutely correct- the property is zoned correctly and should remain industrial. The only reason it has not been developed is because Lewis Homes has blocked every effort to do so.

    They demolished hundreds of thousands of feet of buildings in excellent condition apparently to prevent a proposal (presented to City) to reuse those facilities for a Green Energy Park. There was absolutely no other justification for the demolition of those fully functional buildings.

    The city should sit tight and when Lewis finally gets tired of squatting on the property, they will sell to developers who are willing to actually work with the city within the industrial zoning.

  108. Anonymous

    The mayor is absolutely correct- the property is zoned correctly and should remain industrial. The only reason it has not been developed is because Lewis Homes has blocked every effort to do so.

    They demolished hundreds of thousands of feet of buildings in excellent condition apparently to prevent a proposal (presented to City) to reuse those facilities for a Green Energy Park. There was absolutely no other justification for the demolition of those fully functional buildings.

    The city should sit tight and when Lewis finally gets tired of squatting on the property, they will sell to developers who are willing to actually work with the city within the industrial zoning.

  109. Anonymous

    “For Davis drivers, that’s impractical…..”

    If the property is high-tech industrial with perhaps some residential to “sweeten” the deal for the property owner, another road into the property from the North(we can assume that there will also be a road onto Covell Blvd.) would take traffic off of the Covell Blvd potential traffic nightmare. I-5 would then be another alternative to I-80 as a freeway destination. Your point only dramatizes the geographic isolation of this area from the rest of Davis and its value as industrial rather than residential.

  110. Anonymous

    “For Davis drivers, that’s impractical…..”

    If the property is high-tech industrial with perhaps some residential to “sweeten” the deal for the property owner, another road into the property from the North(we can assume that there will also be a road onto Covell Blvd.) would take traffic off of the Covell Blvd potential traffic nightmare. I-5 would then be another alternative to I-80 as a freeway destination. Your point only dramatizes the geographic isolation of this area from the rest of Davis and its value as industrial rather than residential.

  111. Anonymous

    “For Davis drivers, that’s impractical…..”

    If the property is high-tech industrial with perhaps some residential to “sweeten” the deal for the property owner, another road into the property from the North(we can assume that there will also be a road onto Covell Blvd.) would take traffic off of the Covell Blvd potential traffic nightmare. I-5 would then be another alternative to I-80 as a freeway destination. Your point only dramatizes the geographic isolation of this area from the rest of Davis and its value as industrial rather than residential.

  112. Anonymous

    “For Davis drivers, that’s impractical…..”

    If the property is high-tech industrial with perhaps some residential to “sweeten” the deal for the property owner, another road into the property from the North(we can assume that there will also be a road onto Covell Blvd.) would take traffic off of the Covell Blvd potential traffic nightmare. I-5 would then be another alternative to I-80 as a freeway destination. Your point only dramatizes the geographic isolation of this area from the rest of Davis and its value as industrial rather than residential.

  113. 無名 - wu ming

    i second richard on the high density affordable housing and high tech jobs plan.

    davis is not in danger of becoming a commuter suburb, it became one a while ago.

  114. 無名 - wu ming

    i second richard on the high density affordable housing and high tech jobs plan.

    davis is not in danger of becoming a commuter suburb, it became one a while ago.

  115. 無名 - wu ming

    i second richard on the high density affordable housing and high tech jobs plan.

    davis is not in danger of becoming a commuter suburb, it became one a while ago.

  116. 無名 - wu ming

    i second richard on the high density affordable housing and high tech jobs plan.

    davis is not in danger of becoming a commuter suburb, it became one a while ago.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for