Council Goes with Equal Weight Alternative EIR on Cannery Site by 4-1 Vote

The Davis City Council eventually agreed by a 4-1 vote to go with City Manager Bill Emlen’s recommendation for the Lewis-Cannery Project.

a. Evaluation, refinement and processing of the mixed use project concept proposed by Lewis or some variation thereof
b. Request Lewis to also prepare a full business park alternative plan for the site
c. Initiate City sponsored public outreach efforts with focus on the immediate neighborhood; and discussions with UCD and representatives in the tech sector regarding future business park land needs
d. Conduct an equal weight EIR analysis that evaluates the impacts of both the Cannery Park mixed use and Business Park Use concepts
e. Direct staff to conduct a more detailed analysis of options and strategies for meeting future business park land needs in light of current build out rates, including but not limited to, retaining the current zoning and the potential use of the Lewis site for other purposes
f. Direct staff to prepare a detailed timeline for completing this work; return to Council to adopt the timeline; make a strong commitment that the city will adhere to the timeline

The council eventually agreed to this well-crafted compromise with two modifications. First, they put a one-year time-frame on the EIR. Second, at the behest of Councilmember Sue Greenwald, the city with possible outside expert help will develop the full business park alternative in order to prevent a possible conflict of interest with the Lewis Planned Communities expressed desire to create a mixed-use project.

The centerpiece of this compromise was Bill Emlen’s belief that there has not been a full study of the business park alternative. That the city has not fully considered the impact of a change in zoning from the current usage. Emlen argued the full-weight alternative EIR was needed to fully consider the business park alternative. In addition, having a full weight EIR would allow the council in a year’s time to adopt this alternative and put it into place if that is the route they decide to go. Emlen did not believe that the city had enough information to make a decision on the form of the mixed use or even whether to go with a mixed-use approach exclusive to the site.

The eventual 4-1 vote with Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor the lone dissenter, however belies quite a bit of difference in the council’s general belief of what should be done on this site.

Councilmember Sue Greenwald was adamant that the current owners of the site have been strongly opposed to a business park alternative that would feature high-tech and possibly green technology industry. She made an alternative motion to deny the zoning change and direct the owners to find suitable business ventures for the site. Councilmember Lamar Heystek joined her on the motion, but the substitute motion was defeated 3-2.

Councilmember Don Saylor largely supported the current proposal and believes that it was the proper approach. However, it was clear from the beginning that he was outnumbered 4-1 in terms of his view of proceeding with the main project. He tried to argue for a substitute motion which would make the Lewis-Cannery proposal as the main EIR and the business park alternative as an alternative, but not an equal weight alternative. The Mayor Pro Tem was turned down by both the City Manager and Councilmember Souza on that approach, both of whom argued that such an EIR would not fully explore the business park alternative and if the council adopted that approach in a year, it would be required to do a new EIR with the business park option as the main project. This would slow things down. As it is, the cost to the developer according to the city manager will run from between $50,000 to $100,000 in additional money to do the equal weight EIR versus the more traditional main plan and then alternative project EIR.

The swing votes on the council ended up being Stephen Souza and Mayor Ruth Asmundson. The Mayor wanted some sort of mixed-use project. However, the definition of mixed-use to her was unclear in her own mind. She could foresee something that was anywhere from 50-50 to 80-20. Moreover, she could also mixed-use not as project-specific but rather area specific, where a large area of residential neighborhoods surrounds the business park.

Councilmember Stephen Souza was quite eloquent. He passionately argued for the need for Davis to take advantage of the green-technology revolution that is sweeping the country. He also argued that this project does not have the “wow factor” that he is looking for, and thus is not a project he is inclined to approve. However, he also stopped short of calling for the business park alternative. He wants 100 acres of dedicate business park, but said he is not convinced that this is the location for it. In fact, he believes it is not. He also wants the area studied with the adjacent Covell Village to determine the best usage.

While I do not fully agree with Stephen Souza, I think he did a very good job of articulating the need for the city to be on the edge of innovation in terms of its land use both in terms of green technology and also in terms of sustainable development. In the end, we probably do not see eye-to-eye on the issue of masterplanning the entire area of Lewis plus Covell, but I think he made a strong point on his concerns about completing the bike loop and road access to the east.

Lamar Heystek argued passionately that we need jobs and have good high-tech, green technology jobs was a strong way to go. Sue Greenwald continued her strong advocacy of high-tech, arguing that we have missed out on a number of these start-ups because we did not have the land available for high-tech. The period of build out is not prohibitive because the land is already zoned and in place. We need to however forcefully and strongly pursue these start-ups. She also made a good point about the proximity of the university. There are many university towns looking for high-tech jobs that are close in proximity to the university. People argue that our cost of housing is prohibitive, but places like Berkeley and Stanford for example actually have higher costs for housing. Davis has a lower cost of housing than many competing university towns.

In the end, I would argue that Bill Emlen and his staff did a commendable job laying out the issues and crafting a compromise that keeps the alternative of a business park and a high tech build out on the table. Lewis Planned Communities argued that they would accept business suitors for the property, but the problem is that they have not made a concerted effort to publicize that desire. They believe that the housing option would be more lucrative. But the city in fact has a number of housing options on the table already. For instance Grande has 41 units if approved, Verona another 83 and is already approved, Simmons 90-110, Wild Horse Ranch could feature another 191 if the voters approve that project following council approval. Right there is over 400 units that could be built if the market allows. That does not include the rather large West Village Development. Does the city really need an additional 600 units at this time, in this market? That’s questionable.

For those arguing that we need more affordable housing, ask yourself, does Lewis provide that? And should we settle for what appears to be a mediocre housing proposal because we are desperate for housing? I agree with Stephen Souza, we need a wow factor. Don Saylor argued last night that we’ll never find a wow project. I disagree. I saw a wow project just last week and I will be discussing that project in the future. I think there are wow projects that could come forward and can be on the cutting edge of innovation. We just need to raise our standards.

At the end of the day, Kevin Wolf, former chair of the Housing Element Steering Committee made a vital point, Lewis Planned Communities bought this property knowing its current zoning. We do not owe them anything. We need to do this process right. Bill Emlen, who I often disagree with, gave us a plan by which we can do exactly that.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

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

120 Comments

  1. SODAite

    Can you explaun the disagreement between Kevin Wolf and Eileen Samitz on the Housing Element TF view of the site. It seemed clear from Kevin’s point (and also Mark Siegler’s) but twice Eileen said the TF voted it NOT be appropriate for a business park. What is her role here? Is she a paid advocate for Lewis? She has seemed to change dramatically from her CV days.

  2. SODAite

    Can you explaun the disagreement between Kevin Wolf and Eileen Samitz on the Housing Element TF view of the site. It seemed clear from Kevin’s point (and also Mark Siegler’s) but twice Eileen said the TF voted it NOT be appropriate for a business park. What is her role here? Is she a paid advocate for Lewis? She has seemed to change dramatically from her CV days.

  3. SODAite

    Can you explaun the disagreement between Kevin Wolf and Eileen Samitz on the Housing Element TF view of the site. It seemed clear from Kevin’s point (and also Mark Siegler’s) but twice Eileen said the TF voted it NOT be appropriate for a business park. What is her role here? Is she a paid advocate for Lewis? She has seemed to change dramatically from her CV days.

  4. SODAite

    Can you explaun the disagreement between Kevin Wolf and Eileen Samitz on the Housing Element TF view of the site. It seemed clear from Kevin’s point (and also Mark Siegler’s) but twice Eileen said the TF voted it NOT be appropriate for a business park. What is her role here? Is she a paid advocate for Lewis? She has seemed to change dramatically from her CV days.

  5. Ol Timer

    If Sue Greenwald is opposed to the Lewis Homes Cannery proposal, Eileen Samitz will be in favor of it. We do not have to look any further for an explanation beyond the personal/local political ego clashes that have plagued Davis progressive politics for years.

  6. Ol Timer

    If Sue Greenwald is opposed to the Lewis Homes Cannery proposal, Eileen Samitz will be in favor of it. We do not have to look any further for an explanation beyond the personal/local political ego clashes that have plagued Davis progressive politics for years.

  7. Ol Timer

    If Sue Greenwald is opposed to the Lewis Homes Cannery proposal, Eileen Samitz will be in favor of it. We do not have to look any further for an explanation beyond the personal/local political ego clashes that have plagued Davis progressive politics for years.

  8. Ol Timer

    If Sue Greenwald is opposed to the Lewis Homes Cannery proposal, Eileen Samitz will be in favor of it. We do not have to look any further for an explanation beyond the personal/local political ego clashes that have plagued Davis progressive politics for years.

  9. Blog Administrator

    I’m going to say this to everyone, if I see any more interpersonal stuff, I will delete posts without warning. Stick to the issues, the issues are important and they are compelling. If that doesn’t give people enough to discuss, we can always close this topic down and start new tomorrow.

  10. Blog Administrator

    I’m going to say this to everyone, if I see any more interpersonal stuff, I will delete posts without warning. Stick to the issues, the issues are important and they are compelling. If that doesn’t give people enough to discuss, we can always close this topic down and start new tomorrow.

  11. Blog Administrator

    I’m going to say this to everyone, if I see any more interpersonal stuff, I will delete posts without warning. Stick to the issues, the issues are important and they are compelling. If that doesn’t give people enough to discuss, we can always close this topic down and start new tomorrow.

  12. Blog Administrator

    I’m going to say this to everyone, if I see any more interpersonal stuff, I will delete posts without warning. Stick to the issues, the issues are important and they are compelling. If that doesn’t give people enough to discuss, we can always close this topic down and start new tomorrow.

  13. Black Bart

    Don is right the $100,000 from the city for Sue Greenwald’s pipe dream is a waste of money. Remember that money could buy one of those over paid positions you are always complaining about.

  14. Black Bart

    Don is right the $100,000 from the city for Sue Greenwald’s pipe dream is a waste of money. Remember that money could buy one of those over paid positions you are always complaining about.

  15. Black Bart

    Don is right the $100,000 from the city for Sue Greenwald’s pipe dream is a waste of money. Remember that money could buy one of those over paid positions you are always complaining about.

  16. Black Bart

    Don is right the $100,000 from the city for Sue Greenwald’s pipe dream is a waste of money. Remember that money could buy one of those over paid positions you are always complaining about.

  17. KISS

    All Bill Emlen did was straddle the fence. Big deal – he does that all the time. I’m not ready to give him any kudos for this one.

    Let’s face it – this city has a financial problem bc of their “creative bookkeeping” which claims we have a balanced budget when we don’t. The city gov’t is running at a huge deficit that we cannot pay for. There is a huge need for more commercial development of whatever kind, to generate more tax revenue to pay for city services.

    We don’t need more housing right now, w the lousy housing market – houses for sale have been sitting idle for months on our street. What we need is more commercial development, not a mixed housing use of land zoned commercial. KISS Lewis Cannery project needs to remain zoned commercial.

  18. KISS

    All Bill Emlen did was straddle the fence. Big deal – he does that all the time. I’m not ready to give him any kudos for this one.

    Let’s face it – this city has a financial problem bc of their “creative bookkeeping” which claims we have a balanced budget when we don’t. The city gov’t is running at a huge deficit that we cannot pay for. There is a huge need for more commercial development of whatever kind, to generate more tax revenue to pay for city services.

    We don’t need more housing right now, w the lousy housing market – houses for sale have been sitting idle for months on our street. What we need is more commercial development, not a mixed housing use of land zoned commercial. KISS Lewis Cannery project needs to remain zoned commercial.

  19. KISS

    All Bill Emlen did was straddle the fence. Big deal – he does that all the time. I’m not ready to give him any kudos for this one.

    Let’s face it – this city has a financial problem bc of their “creative bookkeeping” which claims we have a balanced budget when we don’t. The city gov’t is running at a huge deficit that we cannot pay for. There is a huge need for more commercial development of whatever kind, to generate more tax revenue to pay for city services.

    We don’t need more housing right now, w the lousy housing market – houses for sale have been sitting idle for months on our street. What we need is more commercial development, not a mixed housing use of land zoned commercial. KISS Lewis Cannery project needs to remain zoned commercial.

  20. KISS

    All Bill Emlen did was straddle the fence. Big deal – he does that all the time. I’m not ready to give him any kudos for this one.

    Let’s face it – this city has a financial problem bc of their “creative bookkeeping” which claims we have a balanced budget when we don’t. The city gov’t is running at a huge deficit that we cannot pay for. There is a huge need for more commercial development of whatever kind, to generate more tax revenue to pay for city services.

    We don’t need more housing right now, w the lousy housing market – houses for sale have been sitting idle for months on our street. What we need is more commercial development, not a mixed housing use of land zoned commercial. KISS Lewis Cannery project needs to remain zoned commercial.

  21. Sue Greenwald

    I think that the difference of opinion between Eileen Samitz and myself on this issue is neighborhood specific, and comes down to some genuine differing views on city planning.

    Eileen and I have a genuine disagreement concerning whether having a clean, high-tech oriented business park near one’s neighborhood would be a good thing or a bad thing for the neighborhood.

    I think it would be a good thing, while Eileen thinks it would be a bad thing.

    From my point of view, traffic impacts would be about equal to the traffic impacts of the mostly residential proposal, and high-tech oriented business parks do not have a lot of truck traffic, as some have feared.

    I think living near such a business park adds vitality to a neighborhood. More and better restaurants would locate in the Nugget shopping center. Well over 4,000 houses are within ¾ miles of the site, and 1 out of 7 change hands every year, so it would not take long before many people who worked at the business park would be living close to their jobs. They would be walking and biking to work. Many would be coming home for lunch, so that neighborhoods would not be deserted all day.

    Many interesting non-residential uses for which we do not have room downtown would come to the site. None-profits, Churches, community performing groups — and all kinds of interesting and varied uses and activities would take place. For example, Mace Ranch business park has Explorit, the in-line Hockey rink, Davis Musical Theater.

    I myself live adjacent to the University, which of course is full of high-tech research labs. I love the vitality of my neighborhood. I also supported a business park at the Nishi, which is closer to my house than the Cannery is to Eileen’s. Unfortunately, the cost of building auto access under the railroad tracks for that small parcel has made a business park, which is lower profit than housing, unfeasible for that site.

    I think Eileen has a more conventional planning view than I do: I think she believes that residential neighborhoods or more desirable when they are segregated from jobs centers. Although I disagree with her on this issue, I think she is motivated solely by what she genuinely thinks is best for her neighborhood.

  22. Sue Greenwald

    I think that the difference of opinion between Eileen Samitz and myself on this issue is neighborhood specific, and comes down to some genuine differing views on city planning.

    Eileen and I have a genuine disagreement concerning whether having a clean, high-tech oriented business park near one’s neighborhood would be a good thing or a bad thing for the neighborhood.

    I think it would be a good thing, while Eileen thinks it would be a bad thing.

    From my point of view, traffic impacts would be about equal to the traffic impacts of the mostly residential proposal, and high-tech oriented business parks do not have a lot of truck traffic, as some have feared.

    I think living near such a business park adds vitality to a neighborhood. More and better restaurants would locate in the Nugget shopping center. Well over 4,000 houses are within ¾ miles of the site, and 1 out of 7 change hands every year, so it would not take long before many people who worked at the business park would be living close to their jobs. They would be walking and biking to work. Many would be coming home for lunch, so that neighborhoods would not be deserted all day.

    Many interesting non-residential uses for which we do not have room downtown would come to the site. None-profits, Churches, community performing groups — and all kinds of interesting and varied uses and activities would take place. For example, Mace Ranch business park has Explorit, the in-line Hockey rink, Davis Musical Theater.

    I myself live adjacent to the University, which of course is full of high-tech research labs. I love the vitality of my neighborhood. I also supported a business park at the Nishi, which is closer to my house than the Cannery is to Eileen’s. Unfortunately, the cost of building auto access under the railroad tracks for that small parcel has made a business park, which is lower profit than housing, unfeasible for that site.

    I think Eileen has a more conventional planning view than I do: I think she believes that residential neighborhoods or more desirable when they are segregated from jobs centers. Although I disagree with her on this issue, I think she is motivated solely by what she genuinely thinks is best for her neighborhood.

  23. Sue Greenwald

    I think that the difference of opinion between Eileen Samitz and myself on this issue is neighborhood specific, and comes down to some genuine differing views on city planning.

    Eileen and I have a genuine disagreement concerning whether having a clean, high-tech oriented business park near one’s neighborhood would be a good thing or a bad thing for the neighborhood.

    I think it would be a good thing, while Eileen thinks it would be a bad thing.

    From my point of view, traffic impacts would be about equal to the traffic impacts of the mostly residential proposal, and high-tech oriented business parks do not have a lot of truck traffic, as some have feared.

    I think living near such a business park adds vitality to a neighborhood. More and better restaurants would locate in the Nugget shopping center. Well over 4,000 houses are within ¾ miles of the site, and 1 out of 7 change hands every year, so it would not take long before many people who worked at the business park would be living close to their jobs. They would be walking and biking to work. Many would be coming home for lunch, so that neighborhoods would not be deserted all day.

    Many interesting non-residential uses for which we do not have room downtown would come to the site. None-profits, Churches, community performing groups — and all kinds of interesting and varied uses and activities would take place. For example, Mace Ranch business park has Explorit, the in-line Hockey rink, Davis Musical Theater.

    I myself live adjacent to the University, which of course is full of high-tech research labs. I love the vitality of my neighborhood. I also supported a business park at the Nishi, which is closer to my house than the Cannery is to Eileen’s. Unfortunately, the cost of building auto access under the railroad tracks for that small parcel has made a business park, which is lower profit than housing, unfeasible for that site.

    I think Eileen has a more conventional planning view than I do: I think she believes that residential neighborhoods or more desirable when they are segregated from jobs centers. Although I disagree with her on this issue, I think she is motivated solely by what she genuinely thinks is best for her neighborhood.

  24. Sue Greenwald

    I think that the difference of opinion between Eileen Samitz and myself on this issue is neighborhood specific, and comes down to some genuine differing views on city planning.

    Eileen and I have a genuine disagreement concerning whether having a clean, high-tech oriented business park near one’s neighborhood would be a good thing or a bad thing for the neighborhood.

    I think it would be a good thing, while Eileen thinks it would be a bad thing.

    From my point of view, traffic impacts would be about equal to the traffic impacts of the mostly residential proposal, and high-tech oriented business parks do not have a lot of truck traffic, as some have feared.

    I think living near such a business park adds vitality to a neighborhood. More and better restaurants would locate in the Nugget shopping center. Well over 4,000 houses are within ¾ miles of the site, and 1 out of 7 change hands every year, so it would not take long before many people who worked at the business park would be living close to their jobs. They would be walking and biking to work. Many would be coming home for lunch, so that neighborhoods would not be deserted all day.

    Many interesting non-residential uses for which we do not have room downtown would come to the site. None-profits, Churches, community performing groups — and all kinds of interesting and varied uses and activities would take place. For example, Mace Ranch business park has Explorit, the in-line Hockey rink, Davis Musical Theater.

    I myself live adjacent to the University, which of course is full of high-tech research labs. I love the vitality of my neighborhood. I also supported a business park at the Nishi, which is closer to my house than the Cannery is to Eileen’s. Unfortunately, the cost of building auto access under the railroad tracks for that small parcel has made a business park, which is lower profit than housing, unfeasible for that site.

    I think Eileen has a more conventional planning view than I do: I think she believes that residential neighborhoods or more desirable when they are segregated from jobs centers. Although I disagree with her on this issue, I think she is motivated solely by what she genuinely thinks is best for her neighborhood.

  25. Rich Rifkin

    “There is a huge need for more commercial development of whatever kind, to generate more tax revenue to pay for city services.”

    I don’t disagree. However, in our current economic climate, I think it unlikely we will attract new companies.

    It will be hard for Lewis (or a successor developer) to finance a business park development; it will be harder still to find companies with the ready cash to open up or relocate here.

    That is not an argument against keeping the current zoning. I am simply pointing out that, given economic realities, I don’t think $1 will be invested in a business park at the cannery site in the next 5 years, maybe longer.

    If you take seriously the predictions of the automatic earth blog (and maybe you ought to), we should consider temporarily zoning the cannery for a homeless encampment.

  26. Rich Rifkin

    “There is a huge need for more commercial development of whatever kind, to generate more tax revenue to pay for city services.”

    I don’t disagree. However, in our current economic climate, I think it unlikely we will attract new companies.

    It will be hard for Lewis (or a successor developer) to finance a business park development; it will be harder still to find companies with the ready cash to open up or relocate here.

    That is not an argument against keeping the current zoning. I am simply pointing out that, given economic realities, I don’t think $1 will be invested in a business park at the cannery site in the next 5 years, maybe longer.

    If you take seriously the predictions of the automatic earth blog (and maybe you ought to), we should consider temporarily zoning the cannery for a homeless encampment.

  27. Rich Rifkin

    “There is a huge need for more commercial development of whatever kind, to generate more tax revenue to pay for city services.”

    I don’t disagree. However, in our current economic climate, I think it unlikely we will attract new companies.

    It will be hard for Lewis (or a successor developer) to finance a business park development; it will be harder still to find companies with the ready cash to open up or relocate here.

    That is not an argument against keeping the current zoning. I am simply pointing out that, given economic realities, I don’t think $1 will be invested in a business park at the cannery site in the next 5 years, maybe longer.

    If you take seriously the predictions of the automatic earth blog (and maybe you ought to), we should consider temporarily zoning the cannery for a homeless encampment.

  28. Rich Rifkin

    “There is a huge need for more commercial development of whatever kind, to generate more tax revenue to pay for city services.”

    I don’t disagree. However, in our current economic climate, I think it unlikely we will attract new companies.

    It will be hard for Lewis (or a successor developer) to finance a business park development; it will be harder still to find companies with the ready cash to open up or relocate here.

    That is not an argument against keeping the current zoning. I am simply pointing out that, given economic realities, I don’t think $1 will be invested in a business park at the cannery site in the next 5 years, maybe longer.

    If you take seriously the predictions of the automatic earth blog (and maybe you ought to), we should consider temporarily zoning the cannery for a homeless encampment.

  29. no to cannery park housing

    Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek are to be commended for voting to keep the old cannery site zoned as high-tech commercial. They both made compelling cases that the site should be marketed as a business park by the owners and City Staff. The City desperately needs revenue and good paying jobs that the emerging “green tech” and “clean tech” companies will provide in the new economy developing in California and the Sacramento region. Steve Souza understood this too and noted that there is nothing unique about the Lewis housing development proposal. There is no “wow” factor as the housing project is simply a carbon copy of other planned residential communities you can find sprawled throughout California. Nothing innovative at all.

    In 2004, Lewis Homes bought this high-tech zoned property and less than two years later in 2006 had a formal application before the City asking that the zoning be changed to residential. Everyone knows residential property is more valuable to the land owner than commercial. It is clear Lewis bought this land on the cheap to convert it to residential. There is no evidence they truly designed or marketed the property as it was intended to be used and zoned by the City—a high-tech business park. All credible evidence shows they had no intention of recruiting for or building a business park or high-tech center, not withstanding their claims.

    Barbara Hayes, Executive Director of Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organizations (SACTO) made a presentation last night to the City Council wherein she identified the increasingly successful work being done in the Sacramento region to recruit green and clean technology companies to our communities. She pointed out that Davis always comes up on the radar screen due to UC Davis and the forward thinking research being done there on renewable, sustainable and new technologies. The City and commercial property owners need to do a better job of marketing the land available to these industries, many of which are spin-off’s from UC Davis itself.

    As the Vanguard reports: “Kevin Wolf, former chair of the Housing Element Steering Committee made a vital point, Lewis Planned Communities bought this property knowing its current zoning. We do not owe them anything.”

    We do owe it to our community to demand a credible and trustworthy effort to market this property as a commercial high-tech business center.

  30. no to cannery park housing

    Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek are to be commended for voting to keep the old cannery site zoned as high-tech commercial. They both made compelling cases that the site should be marketed as a business park by the owners and City Staff. The City desperately needs revenue and good paying jobs that the emerging “green tech” and “clean tech” companies will provide in the new economy developing in California and the Sacramento region. Steve Souza understood this too and noted that there is nothing unique about the Lewis housing development proposal. There is no “wow” factor as the housing project is simply a carbon copy of other planned residential communities you can find sprawled throughout California. Nothing innovative at all.

    In 2004, Lewis Homes bought this high-tech zoned property and less than two years later in 2006 had a formal application before the City asking that the zoning be changed to residential. Everyone knows residential property is more valuable to the land owner than commercial. It is clear Lewis bought this land on the cheap to convert it to residential. There is no evidence they truly designed or marketed the property as it was intended to be used and zoned by the City—a high-tech business park. All credible evidence shows they had no intention of recruiting for or building a business park or high-tech center, not withstanding their claims.

    Barbara Hayes, Executive Director of Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organizations (SACTO) made a presentation last night to the City Council wherein she identified the increasingly successful work being done in the Sacramento region to recruit green and clean technology companies to our communities. She pointed out that Davis always comes up on the radar screen due to UC Davis and the forward thinking research being done there on renewable, sustainable and new technologies. The City and commercial property owners need to do a better job of marketing the land available to these industries, many of which are spin-off’s from UC Davis itself.

    As the Vanguard reports: “Kevin Wolf, former chair of the Housing Element Steering Committee made a vital point, Lewis Planned Communities bought this property knowing its current zoning. We do not owe them anything.”

    We do owe it to our community to demand a credible and trustworthy effort to market this property as a commercial high-tech business center.

  31. no to cannery park housing

    Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek are to be commended for voting to keep the old cannery site zoned as high-tech commercial. They both made compelling cases that the site should be marketed as a business park by the owners and City Staff. The City desperately needs revenue and good paying jobs that the emerging “green tech” and “clean tech” companies will provide in the new economy developing in California and the Sacramento region. Steve Souza understood this too and noted that there is nothing unique about the Lewis housing development proposal. There is no “wow” factor as the housing project is simply a carbon copy of other planned residential communities you can find sprawled throughout California. Nothing innovative at all.

    In 2004, Lewis Homes bought this high-tech zoned property and less than two years later in 2006 had a formal application before the City asking that the zoning be changed to residential. Everyone knows residential property is more valuable to the land owner than commercial. It is clear Lewis bought this land on the cheap to convert it to residential. There is no evidence they truly designed or marketed the property as it was intended to be used and zoned by the City—a high-tech business park. All credible evidence shows they had no intention of recruiting for or building a business park or high-tech center, not withstanding their claims.

    Barbara Hayes, Executive Director of Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organizations (SACTO) made a presentation last night to the City Council wherein she identified the increasingly successful work being done in the Sacramento region to recruit green and clean technology companies to our communities. She pointed out that Davis always comes up on the radar screen due to UC Davis and the forward thinking research being done there on renewable, sustainable and new technologies. The City and commercial property owners need to do a better job of marketing the land available to these industries, many of which are spin-off’s from UC Davis itself.

    As the Vanguard reports: “Kevin Wolf, former chair of the Housing Element Steering Committee made a vital point, Lewis Planned Communities bought this property knowing its current zoning. We do not owe them anything.”

    We do owe it to our community to demand a credible and trustworthy effort to market this property as a commercial high-tech business center.

  32. no to cannery park housing

    Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek are to be commended for voting to keep the old cannery site zoned as high-tech commercial. They both made compelling cases that the site should be marketed as a business park by the owners and City Staff. The City desperately needs revenue and good paying jobs that the emerging “green tech” and “clean tech” companies will provide in the new economy developing in California and the Sacramento region. Steve Souza understood this too and noted that there is nothing unique about the Lewis housing development proposal. There is no “wow” factor as the housing project is simply a carbon copy of other planned residential communities you can find sprawled throughout California. Nothing innovative at all.

    In 2004, Lewis Homes bought this high-tech zoned property and less than two years later in 2006 had a formal application before the City asking that the zoning be changed to residential. Everyone knows residential property is more valuable to the land owner than commercial. It is clear Lewis bought this land on the cheap to convert it to residential. There is no evidence they truly designed or marketed the property as it was intended to be used and zoned by the City—a high-tech business park. All credible evidence shows they had no intention of recruiting for or building a business park or high-tech center, not withstanding their claims.

    Barbara Hayes, Executive Director of Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organizations (SACTO) made a presentation last night to the City Council wherein she identified the increasingly successful work being done in the Sacramento region to recruit green and clean technology companies to our communities. She pointed out that Davis always comes up on the radar screen due to UC Davis and the forward thinking research being done there on renewable, sustainable and new technologies. The City and commercial property owners need to do a better job of marketing the land available to these industries, many of which are spin-off’s from UC Davis itself.

    As the Vanguard reports: “Kevin Wolf, former chair of the Housing Element Steering Committee made a vital point, Lewis Planned Communities bought this property knowing its current zoning. We do not owe them anything.”

    We do owe it to our community to demand a credible and trustworthy effort to market this property as a commercial high-tech business center.

  33. mike harrington

    I think that there has to be some sort of public jump start to the funding for the infrastructure for R & D development. Anyone have any ideas or comments on that subject?

    Also, the Chamber of Commerce should be in there swinging to protect the commercial zoning on this land. Anyone know if ther C of C's Governmental Relations Committee made a recommendation to their Board?

    As Steve said, the current proposal has no WOW factor. Keep status quo until there is, but study how to get R & D infrastructure onto the site, while ensuring the traffic counts do not increase too high on the local roads network.

  34. mike harrington

    I think that there has to be some sort of public jump start to the funding for the infrastructure for R & D development. Anyone have any ideas or comments on that subject?

    Also, the Chamber of Commerce should be in there swinging to protect the commercial zoning on this land. Anyone know if ther C of C's Governmental Relations Committee made a recommendation to their Board?

    As Steve said, the current proposal has no WOW factor. Keep status quo until there is, but study how to get R & D infrastructure onto the site, while ensuring the traffic counts do not increase too high on the local roads network.

  35. mike harrington

    I think that there has to be some sort of public jump start to the funding for the infrastructure for R & D development. Anyone have any ideas or comments on that subject?

    Also, the Chamber of Commerce should be in there swinging to protect the commercial zoning on this land. Anyone know if ther C of C's Governmental Relations Committee made a recommendation to their Board?

    As Steve said, the current proposal has no WOW factor. Keep status quo until there is, but study how to get R & D infrastructure onto the site, while ensuring the traffic counts do not increase too high on the local roads network.

  36. mike harrington

    I think that there has to be some sort of public jump start to the funding for the infrastructure for R & D development. Anyone have any ideas or comments on that subject?

    Also, the Chamber of Commerce should be in there swinging to protect the commercial zoning on this land. Anyone know if ther C of C's Governmental Relations Committee made a recommendation to their Board?

    As Steve said, the current proposal has no WOW factor. Keep status quo until there is, but study how to get R & D infrastructure onto the site, while ensuring the traffic counts do not increase too high on the local roads network.

  37. Anonymous

    The wow factor of a nuclear power plant would work. Like a micro nuclear power plant..We could supply ourselves and all of those PG&E customers.
    Better yet lets put that jail prison thing in there that nobody wants.
    Lets put a large lake in there to supplement our water supply.
    Common you brainiachs put some thought into it…

  38. Anonymous

    The wow factor of a nuclear power plant would work. Like a micro nuclear power plant..We could supply ourselves and all of those PG&E customers.
    Better yet lets put that jail prison thing in there that nobody wants.
    Lets put a large lake in there to supplement our water supply.
    Common you brainiachs put some thought into it…

  39. Anonymous

    The wow factor of a nuclear power plant would work. Like a micro nuclear power plant..We could supply ourselves and all of those PG&E customers.
    Better yet lets put that jail prison thing in there that nobody wants.
    Lets put a large lake in there to supplement our water supply.
    Common you brainiachs put some thought into it…

  40. Anonymous

    The wow factor of a nuclear power plant would work. Like a micro nuclear power plant..We could supply ourselves and all of those PG&E customers.
    Better yet lets put that jail prison thing in there that nobody wants.
    Lets put a large lake in there to supplement our water supply.
    Common you brainiachs put some thought into it…

  41. PRED Old Timer

    Rich is correct. Davis can want all it wants but CRE development is not going to happen any time soon.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2008/20081203/default.htm
    “Commercial real estate markets weakened broadly. Vacancy rates rose in Boston, New York, Richmond, Chicago, Kansas City and San Francisco, but were mixed across markets in the St. Louis District. Leasing activity was down in almost all Districts. Rents fell in the Boston, New York and Kansas City Districts. Despite reductions in construction materials costs, commercial building activity declined in many Districts with tighter credit conditions as a factor.”

    But then again, RE development is equally hard to get financed these days. The city of Davis needs some old-fashioned belt tightening. There is no white knight coming to save us any time soon.

  42. PRED Old Timer

    Rich is correct. Davis can want all it wants but CRE development is not going to happen any time soon.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2008/20081203/default.htm
    “Commercial real estate markets weakened broadly. Vacancy rates rose in Boston, New York, Richmond, Chicago, Kansas City and San Francisco, but were mixed across markets in the St. Louis District. Leasing activity was down in almost all Districts. Rents fell in the Boston, New York and Kansas City Districts. Despite reductions in construction materials costs, commercial building activity declined in many Districts with tighter credit conditions as a factor.”

    But then again, RE development is equally hard to get financed these days. The city of Davis needs some old-fashioned belt tightening. There is no white knight coming to save us any time soon.

  43. PRED Old Timer

    Rich is correct. Davis can want all it wants but CRE development is not going to happen any time soon.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2008/20081203/default.htm
    “Commercial real estate markets weakened broadly. Vacancy rates rose in Boston, New York, Richmond, Chicago, Kansas City and San Francisco, but were mixed across markets in the St. Louis District. Leasing activity was down in almost all Districts. Rents fell in the Boston, New York and Kansas City Districts. Despite reductions in construction materials costs, commercial building activity declined in many Districts with tighter credit conditions as a factor.”

    But then again, RE development is equally hard to get financed these days. The city of Davis needs some old-fashioned belt tightening. There is no white knight coming to save us any time soon.

  44. PRED Old Timer

    Rich is correct. Davis can want all it wants but CRE development is not going to happen any time soon.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2008/20081203/default.htm
    “Commercial real estate markets weakened broadly. Vacancy rates rose in Boston, New York, Richmond, Chicago, Kansas City and San Francisco, but were mixed across markets in the St. Louis District. Leasing activity was down in almost all Districts. Rents fell in the Boston, New York and Kansas City Districts. Despite reductions in construction materials costs, commercial building activity declined in many Districts with tighter credit conditions as a factor.”

    But then again, RE development is equally hard to get financed these days. The city of Davis needs some old-fashioned belt tightening. There is no white knight coming to save us any time soon.

  45. Rich Rifkin

    From Business Week:

    Given the ongoing financial crisis, how hard is it for early-stage companies to get funded right now? Venture capitalists say entrepreneurs face a much higher bar than in recent years.

    U.S. venture funds invested $7.1 billion in 907 deals during the third quarter of 2008, down 7% from the prior quarter and 9% from the third quarter of 2007, “The funnel for dollars is becoming smaller and smaller,” says Mark Heesen, president of the NVCA.

    VC funds also have to commit more time and capital to help existing portfolio companies weather the downturn while the potential for exits through acquisitions and initial public offerings has greatly diminished.

    Davis should not only be pursuing startups, but existing (and hopefully thriving) companies. However, as long as they are not expanding, it’s unlikely they will relocate to Davis. The vacancy rate for industrial properties in our area is 11.2% (14.0% in Woodland) and rising.

  46. Rich Rifkin

    From Business Week:

    Given the ongoing financial crisis, how hard is it for early-stage companies to get funded right now? Venture capitalists say entrepreneurs face a much higher bar than in recent years.

    U.S. venture funds invested $7.1 billion in 907 deals during the third quarter of 2008, down 7% from the prior quarter and 9% from the third quarter of 2007, “The funnel for dollars is becoming smaller and smaller,” says Mark Heesen, president of the NVCA.

    VC funds also have to commit more time and capital to help existing portfolio companies weather the downturn while the potential for exits through acquisitions and initial public offerings has greatly diminished.

    Davis should not only be pursuing startups, but existing (and hopefully thriving) companies. However, as long as they are not expanding, it’s unlikely they will relocate to Davis. The vacancy rate for industrial properties in our area is 11.2% (14.0% in Woodland) and rising.

  47. Rich Rifkin

    From Business Week:

    Given the ongoing financial crisis, how hard is it for early-stage companies to get funded right now? Venture capitalists say entrepreneurs face a much higher bar than in recent years.

    U.S. venture funds invested $7.1 billion in 907 deals during the third quarter of 2008, down 7% from the prior quarter and 9% from the third quarter of 2007, “The funnel for dollars is becoming smaller and smaller,” says Mark Heesen, president of the NVCA.

    VC funds also have to commit more time and capital to help existing portfolio companies weather the downturn while the potential for exits through acquisitions and initial public offerings has greatly diminished.

    Davis should not only be pursuing startups, but existing (and hopefully thriving) companies. However, as long as they are not expanding, it’s unlikely they will relocate to Davis. The vacancy rate for industrial properties in our area is 11.2% (14.0% in Woodland) and rising.

  48. Rich Rifkin

    From Business Week:

    Given the ongoing financial crisis, how hard is it for early-stage companies to get funded right now? Venture capitalists say entrepreneurs face a much higher bar than in recent years.

    U.S. venture funds invested $7.1 billion in 907 deals during the third quarter of 2008, down 7% from the prior quarter and 9% from the third quarter of 2007, “The funnel for dollars is becoming smaller and smaller,” says Mark Heesen, president of the NVCA.

    VC funds also have to commit more time and capital to help existing portfolio companies weather the downturn while the potential for exits through acquisitions and initial public offerings has greatly diminished.

    Davis should not only be pursuing startups, but existing (and hopefully thriving) companies. However, as long as they are not expanding, it’s unlikely they will relocate to Davis. The vacancy rate for industrial properties in our area is 11.2% (14.0% in Woodland) and rising.

  49. KISS

    “Davis should not only be pursuing startups, but existing (and hopefully thriving) companies. However, as long as they are not expanding, it’s unlikely they will relocate to Davis. The vacancy rate for industrial properties in our area is 11.2% (14.0% in Woodland) and rising.”

    Why all the doom and gloom? Instead, why not take a positive attitude, and give it the old college try (pardon the pun) – especially by brokering a more cordial atmosphere with UCD for instance. Perhaps give some type of incentive to get businesses to come here. We need a little more creativity and a little less naysaying. Davis has gained a reputation for being anti-business, which needs to be overcome.

    Ironically, the housing market looks pretty grim too right now, so why build houses? Bc developers know the financial climate goes in cycles, and it will change soon enough. The City of Davis needs to make a concerted effort to woo business here. More housing is not going to serve citizens well – but end up costing more in taxes and fee hikes to pay for the increase in city services that will result if more housing is built.

  50. KISS

    “Davis should not only be pursuing startups, but existing (and hopefully thriving) companies. However, as long as they are not expanding, it’s unlikely they will relocate to Davis. The vacancy rate for industrial properties in our area is 11.2% (14.0% in Woodland) and rising.”

    Why all the doom and gloom? Instead, why not take a positive attitude, and give it the old college try (pardon the pun) – especially by brokering a more cordial atmosphere with UCD for instance. Perhaps give some type of incentive to get businesses to come here. We need a little more creativity and a little less naysaying. Davis has gained a reputation for being anti-business, which needs to be overcome.

    Ironically, the housing market looks pretty grim too right now, so why build houses? Bc developers know the financial climate goes in cycles, and it will change soon enough. The City of Davis needs to make a concerted effort to woo business here. More housing is not going to serve citizens well – but end up costing more in taxes and fee hikes to pay for the increase in city services that will result if more housing is built.

  51. KISS

    “Davis should not only be pursuing startups, but existing (and hopefully thriving) companies. However, as long as they are not expanding, it’s unlikely they will relocate to Davis. The vacancy rate for industrial properties in our area is 11.2% (14.0% in Woodland) and rising.”

    Why all the doom and gloom? Instead, why not take a positive attitude, and give it the old college try (pardon the pun) – especially by brokering a more cordial atmosphere with UCD for instance. Perhaps give some type of incentive to get businesses to come here. We need a little more creativity and a little less naysaying. Davis has gained a reputation for being anti-business, which needs to be overcome.

    Ironically, the housing market looks pretty grim too right now, so why build houses? Bc developers know the financial climate goes in cycles, and it will change soon enough. The City of Davis needs to make a concerted effort to woo business here. More housing is not going to serve citizens well – but end up costing more in taxes and fee hikes to pay for the increase in city services that will result if more housing is built.

  52. KISS

    “Davis should not only be pursuing startups, but existing (and hopefully thriving) companies. However, as long as they are not expanding, it’s unlikely they will relocate to Davis. The vacancy rate for industrial properties in our area is 11.2% (14.0% in Woodland) and rising.”

    Why all the doom and gloom? Instead, why not take a positive attitude, and give it the old college try (pardon the pun) – especially by brokering a more cordial atmosphere with UCD for instance. Perhaps give some type of incentive to get businesses to come here. We need a little more creativity and a little less naysaying. Davis has gained a reputation for being anti-business, which needs to be overcome.

    Ironically, the housing market looks pretty grim too right now, so why build houses? Bc developers know the financial climate goes in cycles, and it will change soon enough. The City of Davis needs to make a concerted effort to woo business here. More housing is not going to serve citizens well – but end up costing more in taxes and fee hikes to pay for the increase in city services that will result if more housing is built.

  53. Sue Greenwald

    Rich,
    We have recently had a substantial increase in activity in the high-tech sector. One of the last parcels suitable for a medium-sized high-tech company (I think about 50 to 100 employees) was just sold to a subsidiary of Mori Seiki last year. There is interest, but little left for companies like Mori Seiki that need 4 to 10 acre plots.

    I don’t know where you get the idea that there is no market. This just isn’t true. Obama has pledged $10 billion for green technology R&-), and that is HUGE. Even without that infusion, our industrial land was being absorbed at a fast clip. The consultant said that we will be out of industrial/office land in 5 to 8 years based on recent absorption rates if we change the zoning on Hunt-Wesson.

    If our economy grinds to a complete halt, housing won’t be build either, so what is the argument for rezoning the property? We don’t even know if Lewis would build the houses if they got the entitlements. They could just sit on them, the way the developers of the other 166 units that have been entitled are doing. Or they could get the entitlements and sell the land to another developer, or try to use the increased value that accrues to land when it is upzoned for housing to get loans. We have no idea how long it will take to actually get built zoned as industrial or zoned as housing.

    That said, what if it stays industrially zoned and doesn’t get built out for awhile? Most cities have industrially-zoned land that is not built out. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. You have no hope of getting industrial development if you have no land available for it. As the city grows, it is better to reserve your business park land central to existing houses, rather than pushing it further and further from the city, if you want to increase walkability and bikeability.

  54. Sue Greenwald

    Rich,
    We have recently had a substantial increase in activity in the high-tech sector. One of the last parcels suitable for a medium-sized high-tech company (I think about 50 to 100 employees) was just sold to a subsidiary of Mori Seiki last year. There is interest, but little left for companies like Mori Seiki that need 4 to 10 acre plots.

    I don’t know where you get the idea that there is no market. This just isn’t true. Obama has pledged $10 billion for green technology R&-), and that is HUGE. Even without that infusion, our industrial land was being absorbed at a fast clip. The consultant said that we will be out of industrial/office land in 5 to 8 years based on recent absorption rates if we change the zoning on Hunt-Wesson.

    If our economy grinds to a complete halt, housing won’t be build either, so what is the argument for rezoning the property? We don’t even know if Lewis would build the houses if they got the entitlements. They could just sit on them, the way the developers of the other 166 units that have been entitled are doing. Or they could get the entitlements and sell the land to another developer, or try to use the increased value that accrues to land when it is upzoned for housing to get loans. We have no idea how long it will take to actually get built zoned as industrial or zoned as housing.

    That said, what if it stays industrially zoned and doesn’t get built out for awhile? Most cities have industrially-zoned land that is not built out. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. You have no hope of getting industrial development if you have no land available for it. As the city grows, it is better to reserve your business park land central to existing houses, rather than pushing it further and further from the city, if you want to increase walkability and bikeability.

  55. Sue Greenwald

    Rich,
    We have recently had a substantial increase in activity in the high-tech sector. One of the last parcels suitable for a medium-sized high-tech company (I think about 50 to 100 employees) was just sold to a subsidiary of Mori Seiki last year. There is interest, but little left for companies like Mori Seiki that need 4 to 10 acre plots.

    I don’t know where you get the idea that there is no market. This just isn’t true. Obama has pledged $10 billion for green technology R&-), and that is HUGE. Even without that infusion, our industrial land was being absorbed at a fast clip. The consultant said that we will be out of industrial/office land in 5 to 8 years based on recent absorption rates if we change the zoning on Hunt-Wesson.

    If our economy grinds to a complete halt, housing won’t be build either, so what is the argument for rezoning the property? We don’t even know if Lewis would build the houses if they got the entitlements. They could just sit on them, the way the developers of the other 166 units that have been entitled are doing. Or they could get the entitlements and sell the land to another developer, or try to use the increased value that accrues to land when it is upzoned for housing to get loans. We have no idea how long it will take to actually get built zoned as industrial or zoned as housing.

    That said, what if it stays industrially zoned and doesn’t get built out for awhile? Most cities have industrially-zoned land that is not built out. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. You have no hope of getting industrial development if you have no land available for it. As the city grows, it is better to reserve your business park land central to existing houses, rather than pushing it further and further from the city, if you want to increase walkability and bikeability.

  56. Sue Greenwald

    Rich,
    We have recently had a substantial increase in activity in the high-tech sector. One of the last parcels suitable for a medium-sized high-tech company (I think about 50 to 100 employees) was just sold to a subsidiary of Mori Seiki last year. There is interest, but little left for companies like Mori Seiki that need 4 to 10 acre plots.

    I don’t know where you get the idea that there is no market. This just isn’t true. Obama has pledged $10 billion for green technology R&-), and that is HUGE. Even without that infusion, our industrial land was being absorbed at a fast clip. The consultant said that we will be out of industrial/office land in 5 to 8 years based on recent absorption rates if we change the zoning on Hunt-Wesson.

    If our economy grinds to a complete halt, housing won’t be build either, so what is the argument for rezoning the property? We don’t even know if Lewis would build the houses if they got the entitlements. They could just sit on them, the way the developers of the other 166 units that have been entitled are doing. Or they could get the entitlements and sell the land to another developer, or try to use the increased value that accrues to land when it is upzoned for housing to get loans. We have no idea how long it will take to actually get built zoned as industrial or zoned as housing.

    That said, what if it stays industrially zoned and doesn’t get built out for awhile? Most cities have industrially-zoned land that is not built out. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. You have no hope of getting industrial development if you have no land available for it. As the city grows, it is better to reserve your business park land central to existing houses, rather than pushing it further and further from the city, if you want to increase walkability and bikeability.

  57. Eileen Samitz

    I would have to say that I agree with Rich Rifkin (and all of his helpful business references) that the likelihood of there being a stream of new businesses starting up right now is rather dismal. To dedicate 100-acres of land for a high tech business park in this economic climate, instinctively, does not seem wise and as the viability study concluded, a high tech park of this size is simply not viable. I think an important part of the issue here is the magnitude of the business park. With this downturn in our economy is not realistic to expect to fill 100-acres. Also, the location of this site for commercial is not desirable being so far from I-80. Another important factor is that there much cheaper commercial land available in excess, just down the road in Woodland. It was reported last night that there is a huge amount of vacant commercial land regionally.

    On Sue’s points, I have to say that her assumptions about my planning views are not correct. One major difference between our positions is that Sue is having a difficult time accepting the fact that 100-acres of a commercial park (high tech park or otherwise) is going to bring a lot of truck traffic. It would bring a large amount of truck traffic simply by virtue of the size of the project as well as its function(business). Bringing a lot of trick traffic into and nearby neighborhood’s presents a health, welfare and safety issue that we can not wish away. The tragic fatality of the UCD student years ago at Pole Line and Covell by a semi-truck headed to the Hunt Wesson factory is an example. We do not want to risk another tragedy like this.

    Sue refers to “vitality” brought to neighborhoods by an enormous business park, such as bringing lots of restaurants to Nugget Shopping Center. This “vitality” would rely on alot of car traffic to keep the retail healthy, so this brings in additional traffic factor. I have no problem adding some restaurants to Oak Tree Plaza, but not long ago Sue raised concerns that she did not want too many restaurants straying from the downtown since it would harm the vitality of the downtown.

    Sue also refers to everyone walking and biking to the 100-acre business park, however at last nights Council meeting staff was asked where the workers for the jobs in this park would live? Staff said that most workers would live outside of Davis including Spring Lake and elsewhere.

    Sue incorrectly mentions that she thinks that I believe that jobs should be segregated from neighborhoods. Quite the contrary, I live in a neighborhood with a small business park in it, but is it is scaled to the neighborhood, not an enormous 100-acre business park. But, I would have to acknowledge that I do not know that any of my neighbors work in that business park. So we can not assume that if we build a huge park that nearly residents will work there (see staffs conclusion in the previous paragraph). The key point I am trying bring up again, is that the size is is a major issue. Our General Plan emphasizes the importance of scale and compatibility to keep neighborhoods safe and desirable to live in.

    I know that Sue’s intentions are good advocating for a huge high tech park, but the Hunt Wesson site is not the right location for such a park for the many reasons that I have mentioned above, including the important factor that many neighbors oppose it. In regard to alternative sites, I noticed an interesting concept on the blog yesterday to consider a more scaled business park at the P,G and E site. I had never thought of this idea but it is rather interesting since it is located on 5th street (for circulation) and since it is surrounded by commercial. (I don’t think this area has residential but if it does we would certainly need to get input from neighbors). Also, Sue acknowledges that there are toxics on the P,G, and E site, which would make it a problem to use for housing, but not as much for commercial.

    On your most recent posting Sue, given Rich Rifkin’s facts and figures (thanks again, Rich for all of your research on these references and especially the last one from Business Week) there are so many indicators that commercial growth is slowing down. Furthermore, we currently have at least 73 net acres (a lot more acres if you calculate the gross acreage) for business park, and with the Cannery Park project we would have 93 acres. That is an enormous amount of land that would yield hundreds of thousands of square feet of business park, and if you densify the commercial with two stories, that even doubles the square footage. So we do have plenty of zoned land right now within the city for business park.

    On another point, as I have stated before, I never have accepted any type of payment from any developer. I advocate for good planning and I think this is a good plan, as do many citizens who participated in designing it. I am disappointed to see such an extreme comment simply because I am being consistent in supporting a position which came from the No on Measure X campaign steering committee. The language regarding support for housing at the former Hunt Wesson site was agreed to by the No on Measure X committee and was in our literature:
    “Better Alternatives: There are sites already within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt Wesson site and the P,G and E site in downtown Davis, that could be developed rather than adding a new peripheral sub-division.” Because this project is a good fit for the site and nearby neighborhoods, the BEDC Commission and the Planning Commission supported moving the project forward, the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee supported housing at this site, public input designed it, and neighbors support it, the concept of a mixed-use at this site makes the most sense. If there is no wow in it, then I guess that would be a criticism of the public input that the design evolved from. If some improvements can be made that the public agrees with, well that should be ok.

    Finally, some observations. When Council publicly acknowledged that staff had not done their job on this project last night, I thought that this was quite an embarrassment for the city. It certainly would have helped if staff had followed Council directive and participated in the public outreach and planning from the beginning instead of doing an end run after four years. Also, the Vanguard mentions a point that the land was purchased by the Lewis group with commercial zoning, and the city does not owe them anything. However, a vital point not mentioned in the article is that last year in October of 2007, that Council gave direction to staff to continue processing the Cannery park mixed-use plan.

  58. Eileen Samitz

    I would have to say that I agree with Rich Rifkin (and all of his helpful business references) that the likelihood of there being a stream of new businesses starting up right now is rather dismal. To dedicate 100-acres of land for a high tech business park in this economic climate, instinctively, does not seem wise and as the viability study concluded, a high tech park of this size is simply not viable. I think an important part of the issue here is the magnitude of the business park. With this downturn in our economy is not realistic to expect to fill 100-acres. Also, the location of this site for commercial is not desirable being so far from I-80. Another important factor is that there much cheaper commercial land available in excess, just down the road in Woodland. It was reported last night that there is a huge amount of vacant commercial land regionally.

    On Sue’s points, I have to say that her assumptions about my planning views are not correct. One major difference between our positions is that Sue is having a difficult time accepting the fact that 100-acres of a commercial park (high tech park or otherwise) is going to bring a lot of truck traffic. It would bring a large amount of truck traffic simply by virtue of the size of the project as well as its function(business). Bringing a lot of trick traffic into and nearby neighborhood’s presents a health, welfare and safety issue that we can not wish away. The tragic fatality of the UCD student years ago at Pole Line and Covell by a semi-truck headed to the Hunt Wesson factory is an example. We do not want to risk another tragedy like this.

    Sue refers to “vitality” brought to neighborhoods by an enormous business park, such as bringing lots of restaurants to Nugget Shopping Center. This “vitality” would rely on alot of car traffic to keep the retail healthy, so this brings in additional traffic factor. I have no problem adding some restaurants to Oak Tree Plaza, but not long ago Sue raised concerns that she did not want too many restaurants straying from the downtown since it would harm the vitality of the downtown.

    Sue also refers to everyone walking and biking to the 100-acre business park, however at last nights Council meeting staff was asked where the workers for the jobs in this park would live? Staff said that most workers would live outside of Davis including Spring Lake and elsewhere.

    Sue incorrectly mentions that she thinks that I believe that jobs should be segregated from neighborhoods. Quite the contrary, I live in a neighborhood with a small business park in it, but is it is scaled to the neighborhood, not an enormous 100-acre business park. But, I would have to acknowledge that I do not know that any of my neighbors work in that business park. So we can not assume that if we build a huge park that nearly residents will work there (see staffs conclusion in the previous paragraph). The key point I am trying bring up again, is that the size is is a major issue. Our General Plan emphasizes the importance of scale and compatibility to keep neighborhoods safe and desirable to live in.

    I know that Sue’s intentions are good advocating for a huge high tech park, but the Hunt Wesson site is not the right location for such a park for the many reasons that I have mentioned above, including the important factor that many neighbors oppose it. In regard to alternative sites, I noticed an interesting concept on the blog yesterday to consider a more scaled business park at the P,G and E site. I had never thought of this idea but it is rather interesting since it is located on 5th street (for circulation) and since it is surrounded by commercial. (I don’t think this area has residential but if it does we would certainly need to get input from neighbors). Also, Sue acknowledges that there are toxics on the P,G, and E site, which would make it a problem to use for housing, but not as much for commercial.

    On your most recent posting Sue, given Rich Rifkin’s facts and figures (thanks again, Rich for all of your research on these references and especially the last one from Business Week) there are so many indicators that commercial growth is slowing down. Furthermore, we currently have at least 73 net acres (a lot more acres if you calculate the gross acreage) for business park, and with the Cannery Park project we would have 93 acres. That is an enormous amount of land that would yield hundreds of thousands of square feet of business park, and if you densify the commercial with two stories, that even doubles the square footage. So we do have plenty of zoned land right now within the city for business park.

    On another point, as I have stated before, I never have accepted any type of payment from any developer. I advocate for good planning and I think this is a good plan, as do many citizens who participated in designing it. I am disappointed to see such an extreme comment simply because I am being consistent in supporting a position which came from the No on Measure X campaign steering committee. The language regarding support for housing at the former Hunt Wesson site was agreed to by the No on Measure X committee and was in our literature:
    “Better Alternatives: There are sites already within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt Wesson site and the P,G and E site in downtown Davis, that could be developed rather than adding a new peripheral sub-division.” Because this project is a good fit for the site and nearby neighborhoods, the BEDC Commission and the Planning Commission supported moving the project forward, the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee supported housing at this site, public input designed it, and neighbors support it, the concept of a mixed-use at this site makes the most sense. If there is no wow in it, then I guess that would be a criticism of the public input that the design evolved from. If some improvements can be made that the public agrees with, well that should be ok.

    Finally, some observations. When Council publicly acknowledged that staff had not done their job on this project last night, I thought that this was quite an embarrassment for the city. It certainly would have helped if staff had followed Council directive and participated in the public outreach and planning from the beginning instead of doing an end run after four years. Also, the Vanguard mentions a point that the land was purchased by the Lewis group with commercial zoning, and the city does not owe them anything. However, a vital point not mentioned in the article is that last year in October of 2007, that Council gave direction to staff to continue processing the Cannery park mixed-use plan.

  59. Eileen Samitz

    I would have to say that I agree with Rich Rifkin (and all of his helpful business references) that the likelihood of there being a stream of new businesses starting up right now is rather dismal. To dedicate 100-acres of land for a high tech business park in this economic climate, instinctively, does not seem wise and as the viability study concluded, a high tech park of this size is simply not viable. I think an important part of the issue here is the magnitude of the business park. With this downturn in our economy is not realistic to expect to fill 100-acres. Also, the location of this site for commercial is not desirable being so far from I-80. Another important factor is that there much cheaper commercial land available in excess, just down the road in Woodland. It was reported last night that there is a huge amount of vacant commercial land regionally.

    On Sue’s points, I have to say that her assumptions about my planning views are not correct. One major difference between our positions is that Sue is having a difficult time accepting the fact that 100-acres of a commercial park (high tech park or otherwise) is going to bring a lot of truck traffic. It would bring a large amount of truck traffic simply by virtue of the size of the project as well as its function(business). Bringing a lot of trick traffic into and nearby neighborhood’s presents a health, welfare and safety issue that we can not wish away. The tragic fatality of the UCD student years ago at Pole Line and Covell by a semi-truck headed to the Hunt Wesson factory is an example. We do not want to risk another tragedy like this.

    Sue refers to “vitality” brought to neighborhoods by an enormous business park, such as bringing lots of restaurants to Nugget Shopping Center. This “vitality” would rely on alot of car traffic to keep the retail healthy, so this brings in additional traffic factor. I have no problem adding some restaurants to Oak Tree Plaza, but not long ago Sue raised concerns that she did not want too many restaurants straying from the downtown since it would harm the vitality of the downtown.

    Sue also refers to everyone walking and biking to the 100-acre business park, however at last nights Council meeting staff was asked where the workers for the jobs in this park would live? Staff said that most workers would live outside of Davis including Spring Lake and elsewhere.

    Sue incorrectly mentions that she thinks that I believe that jobs should be segregated from neighborhoods. Quite the contrary, I live in a neighborhood with a small business park in it, but is it is scaled to the neighborhood, not an enormous 100-acre business park. But, I would have to acknowledge that I do not know that any of my neighbors work in that business park. So we can not assume that if we build a huge park that nearly residents will work there (see staffs conclusion in the previous paragraph). The key point I am trying bring up again, is that the size is is a major issue. Our General Plan emphasizes the importance of scale and compatibility to keep neighborhoods safe and desirable to live in.

    I know that Sue’s intentions are good advocating for a huge high tech park, but the Hunt Wesson site is not the right location for such a park for the many reasons that I have mentioned above, including the important factor that many neighbors oppose it. In regard to alternative sites, I noticed an interesting concept on the blog yesterday to consider a more scaled business park at the P,G and E site. I had never thought of this idea but it is rather interesting since it is located on 5th street (for circulation) and since it is surrounded by commercial. (I don’t think this area has residential but if it does we would certainly need to get input from neighbors). Also, Sue acknowledges that there are toxics on the P,G, and E site, which would make it a problem to use for housing, but not as much for commercial.

    On your most recent posting Sue, given Rich Rifkin’s facts and figures (thanks again, Rich for all of your research on these references and especially the last one from Business Week) there are so many indicators that commercial growth is slowing down. Furthermore, we currently have at least 73 net acres (a lot more acres if you calculate the gross acreage) for business park, and with the Cannery Park project we would have 93 acres. That is an enormous amount of land that would yield hundreds of thousands of square feet of business park, and if you densify the commercial with two stories, that even doubles the square footage. So we do have plenty of zoned land right now within the city for business park.

    On another point, as I have stated before, I never have accepted any type of payment from any developer. I advocate for good planning and I think this is a good plan, as do many citizens who participated in designing it. I am disappointed to see such an extreme comment simply because I am being consistent in supporting a position which came from the No on Measure X campaign steering committee. The language regarding support for housing at the former Hunt Wesson site was agreed to by the No on Measure X committee and was in our literature:
    “Better Alternatives: There are sites already within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt Wesson site and the P,G and E site in downtown Davis, that could be developed rather than adding a new peripheral sub-division.” Because this project is a good fit for the site and nearby neighborhoods, the BEDC Commission and the Planning Commission supported moving the project forward, the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee supported housing at this site, public input designed it, and neighbors support it, the concept of a mixed-use at this site makes the most sense. If there is no wow in it, then I guess that would be a criticism of the public input that the design evolved from. If some improvements can be made that the public agrees with, well that should be ok.

    Finally, some observations. When Council publicly acknowledged that staff had not done their job on this project last night, I thought that this was quite an embarrassment for the city. It certainly would have helped if staff had followed Council directive and participated in the public outreach and planning from the beginning instead of doing an end run after four years. Also, the Vanguard mentions a point that the land was purchased by the Lewis group with commercial zoning, and the city does not owe them anything. However, a vital point not mentioned in the article is that last year in October of 2007, that Council gave direction to staff to continue processing the Cannery park mixed-use plan.

  60. Eileen Samitz

    I would have to say that I agree with Rich Rifkin (and all of his helpful business references) that the likelihood of there being a stream of new businesses starting up right now is rather dismal. To dedicate 100-acres of land for a high tech business park in this economic climate, instinctively, does not seem wise and as the viability study concluded, a high tech park of this size is simply not viable. I think an important part of the issue here is the magnitude of the business park. With this downturn in our economy is not realistic to expect to fill 100-acres. Also, the location of this site for commercial is not desirable being so far from I-80. Another important factor is that there much cheaper commercial land available in excess, just down the road in Woodland. It was reported last night that there is a huge amount of vacant commercial land regionally.

    On Sue’s points, I have to say that her assumptions about my planning views are not correct. One major difference between our positions is that Sue is having a difficult time accepting the fact that 100-acres of a commercial park (high tech park or otherwise) is going to bring a lot of truck traffic. It would bring a large amount of truck traffic simply by virtue of the size of the project as well as its function(business). Bringing a lot of trick traffic into and nearby neighborhood’s presents a health, welfare and safety issue that we can not wish away. The tragic fatality of the UCD student years ago at Pole Line and Covell by a semi-truck headed to the Hunt Wesson factory is an example. We do not want to risk another tragedy like this.

    Sue refers to “vitality” brought to neighborhoods by an enormous business park, such as bringing lots of restaurants to Nugget Shopping Center. This “vitality” would rely on alot of car traffic to keep the retail healthy, so this brings in additional traffic factor. I have no problem adding some restaurants to Oak Tree Plaza, but not long ago Sue raised concerns that she did not want too many restaurants straying from the downtown since it would harm the vitality of the downtown.

    Sue also refers to everyone walking and biking to the 100-acre business park, however at last nights Council meeting staff was asked where the workers for the jobs in this park would live? Staff said that most workers would live outside of Davis including Spring Lake and elsewhere.

    Sue incorrectly mentions that she thinks that I believe that jobs should be segregated from neighborhoods. Quite the contrary, I live in a neighborhood with a small business park in it, but is it is scaled to the neighborhood, not an enormous 100-acre business park. But, I would have to acknowledge that I do not know that any of my neighbors work in that business park. So we can not assume that if we build a huge park that nearly residents will work there (see staffs conclusion in the previous paragraph). The key point I am trying bring up again, is that the size is is a major issue. Our General Plan emphasizes the importance of scale and compatibility to keep neighborhoods safe and desirable to live in.

    I know that Sue’s intentions are good advocating for a huge high tech park, but the Hunt Wesson site is not the right location for such a park for the many reasons that I have mentioned above, including the important factor that many neighbors oppose it. In regard to alternative sites, I noticed an interesting concept on the blog yesterday to consider a more scaled business park at the P,G and E site. I had never thought of this idea but it is rather interesting since it is located on 5th street (for circulation) and since it is surrounded by commercial. (I don’t think this area has residential but if it does we would certainly need to get input from neighbors). Also, Sue acknowledges that there are toxics on the P,G, and E site, which would make it a problem to use for housing, but not as much for commercial.

    On your most recent posting Sue, given Rich Rifkin’s facts and figures (thanks again, Rich for all of your research on these references and especially the last one from Business Week) there are so many indicators that commercial growth is slowing down. Furthermore, we currently have at least 73 net acres (a lot more acres if you calculate the gross acreage) for business park, and with the Cannery Park project we would have 93 acres. That is an enormous amount of land that would yield hundreds of thousands of square feet of business park, and if you densify the commercial with two stories, that even doubles the square footage. So we do have plenty of zoned land right now within the city for business park.

    On another point, as I have stated before, I never have accepted any type of payment from any developer. I advocate for good planning and I think this is a good plan, as do many citizens who participated in designing it. I am disappointed to see such an extreme comment simply because I am being consistent in supporting a position which came from the No on Measure X campaign steering committee. The language regarding support for housing at the former Hunt Wesson site was agreed to by the No on Measure X committee and was in our literature:
    “Better Alternatives: There are sites already within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt Wesson site and the P,G and E site in downtown Davis, that could be developed rather than adding a new peripheral sub-division.” Because this project is a good fit for the site and nearby neighborhoods, the BEDC Commission and the Planning Commission supported moving the project forward, the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee supported housing at this site, public input designed it, and neighbors support it, the concept of a mixed-use at this site makes the most sense. If there is no wow in it, then I guess that would be a criticism of the public input that the design evolved from. If some improvements can be made that the public agrees with, well that should be ok.

    Finally, some observations. When Council publicly acknowledged that staff had not done their job on this project last night, I thought that this was quite an embarrassment for the city. It certainly would have helped if staff had followed Council directive and participated in the public outreach and planning from the beginning instead of doing an end run after four years. Also, the Vanguard mentions a point that the land was purchased by the Lewis group with commercial zoning, and the city does not owe them anything. However, a vital point not mentioned in the article is that last year in October of 2007, that Council gave direction to staff to continue processing the Cannery park mixed-use plan.

  61. Rich Rifkin

    Sue: “If our economy grinds to a complete halt, housing won’t be build either, so what is the argument for rezoning the property?”

    I’m neutral on the rezoning question.

    To my mind, the 3 big questions for that property are:

    1. How do you account for traffic impacts on Covell and the nearest neighbors?

    My sense is by not diverting traffic to the east (i.e., through CV) we will have an unnecessarily big problem between F and L on Covell. Yet apparently, the idea of planning roads east is a bugaboo for many people.

    2. How will the development affect the finances of the City of Davis down the road?

    I think Sue has well made the case that high tech development is much better for the city's budget, and therefore from a public policy perspective we should seriously consider that.

    However, I think there is good reason to believe, given the dire state of the national economy, given the lowered activity of the VCs, and given the current high vacancy rates for R&-) industrial properties in our region (14%, according to Grubb & Ellis), it probably will be many years before an R&-) park could be built at that site. (I do agree, given the economic realities, it equally may be hard for Lewis to build very much now, too.)

    While I philosophically prefer to allow the market to decide what types of structures are built — as long as the external costs are accounted for — my personal preferences as a Davis resident for the cannery site would be this:

    1. A medium to low density campus-like R&-) park (with xerescaping);
    2. High density Live/work condominiums and townhouses designed to accomodate small R&-) or light manufacturing businesses and house some of the workers at the R&-) campus;
    3. Innovative energy efficient buildings (100% solar?) using some of the features Maria O. wanted at 233 B;
    4. Roads connecting it to Pole Line;
    5. Bike & pedestrian paths connecting it to Wildhorse/Greenhaven, Northstar and other proximate neighborhoods;
    6. No single family homes;
    7. No low-income housing; and
    8. No garden apartments.

  62. Rich Rifkin

    Sue: “If our economy grinds to a complete halt, housing won’t be build either, so what is the argument for rezoning the property?”

    I’m neutral on the rezoning question.

    To my mind, the 3 big questions for that property are:

    1. How do you account for traffic impacts on Covell and the nearest neighbors?

    My sense is by not diverting traffic to the east (i.e., through CV) we will have an unnecessarily big problem between F and L on Covell. Yet apparently, the idea of planning roads east is a bugaboo for many people.

    2. How will the development affect the finances of the City of Davis down the road?

    I think Sue has well made the case that high tech development is much better for the city's budget, and therefore from a public policy perspective we should seriously consider that.

    However, I think there is good reason to believe, given the dire state of the national economy, given the lowered activity of the VCs, and given the current high vacancy rates for R&-) industrial properties in our region (14%, according to Grubb & Ellis), it probably will be many years before an R&-) park could be built at that site. (I do agree, given the economic realities, it equally may be hard for Lewis to build very much now, too.)

    While I philosophically prefer to allow the market to decide what types of structures are built — as long as the external costs are accounted for — my personal preferences as a Davis resident for the cannery site would be this:

    1. A medium to low density campus-like R&-) park (with xerescaping);
    2. High density Live/work condominiums and townhouses designed to accomodate small R&-) or light manufacturing businesses and house some of the workers at the R&-) campus;
    3. Innovative energy efficient buildings (100% solar?) using some of the features Maria O. wanted at 233 B;
    4. Roads connecting it to Pole Line;
    5. Bike & pedestrian paths connecting it to Wildhorse/Greenhaven, Northstar and other proximate neighborhoods;
    6. No single family homes;
    7. No low-income housing; and
    8. No garden apartments.

  63. Rich Rifkin

    Sue: “If our economy grinds to a complete halt, housing won’t be build either, so what is the argument for rezoning the property?”

    I’m neutral on the rezoning question.

    To my mind, the 3 big questions for that property are:

    1. How do you account for traffic impacts on Covell and the nearest neighbors?

    My sense is by not diverting traffic to the east (i.e., through CV) we will have an unnecessarily big problem between F and L on Covell. Yet apparently, the idea of planning roads east is a bugaboo for many people.

    2. How will the development affect the finances of the City of Davis down the road?

    I think Sue has well made the case that high tech development is much better for the city's budget, and therefore from a public policy perspective we should seriously consider that.

    However, I think there is good reason to believe, given the dire state of the national economy, given the lowered activity of the VCs, and given the current high vacancy rates for R&-) industrial properties in our region (14%, according to Grubb & Ellis), it probably will be many years before an R&-) park could be built at that site. (I do agree, given the economic realities, it equally may be hard for Lewis to build very much now, too.)

    While I philosophically prefer to allow the market to decide what types of structures are built — as long as the external costs are accounted for — my personal preferences as a Davis resident for the cannery site would be this:

    1. A medium to low density campus-like R&-) park (with xerescaping);
    2. High density Live/work condominiums and townhouses designed to accomodate small R&-) or light manufacturing businesses and house some of the workers at the R&-) campus;
    3. Innovative energy efficient buildings (100% solar?) using some of the features Maria O. wanted at 233 B;
    4. Roads connecting it to Pole Line;
    5. Bike & pedestrian paths connecting it to Wildhorse/Greenhaven, Northstar and other proximate neighborhoods;
    6. No single family homes;
    7. No low-income housing; and
    8. No garden apartments.

  64. Rich Rifkin

    Sue: “If our economy grinds to a complete halt, housing won’t be build either, so what is the argument for rezoning the property?”

    I’m neutral on the rezoning question.

    To my mind, the 3 big questions for that property are:

    1. How do you account for traffic impacts on Covell and the nearest neighbors?

    My sense is by not diverting traffic to the east (i.e., through CV) we will have an unnecessarily big problem between F and L on Covell. Yet apparently, the idea of planning roads east is a bugaboo for many people.

    2. How will the development affect the finances of the City of Davis down the road?

    I think Sue has well made the case that high tech development is much better for the city's budget, and therefore from a public policy perspective we should seriously consider that.

    However, I think there is good reason to believe, given the dire state of the national economy, given the lowered activity of the VCs, and given the current high vacancy rates for R&-) industrial properties in our region (14%, according to Grubb & Ellis), it probably will be many years before an R&-) park could be built at that site. (I do agree, given the economic realities, it equally may be hard for Lewis to build very much now, too.)

    While I philosophically prefer to allow the market to decide what types of structures are built — as long as the external costs are accounted for — my personal preferences as a Davis resident for the cannery site would be this:

    1. A medium to low density campus-like R&-) park (with xerescaping);
    2. High density Live/work condominiums and townhouses designed to accomodate small R&-) or light manufacturing businesses and house some of the workers at the R&-) campus;
    3. Innovative energy efficient buildings (100% solar?) using some of the features Maria O. wanted at 233 B;
    4. Roads connecting it to Pole Line;
    5. Bike & pedestrian paths connecting it to Wildhorse/Greenhaven, Northstar and other proximate neighborhoods;
    6. No single family homes;
    7. No low-income housing; and
    8. No garden apartments.

  65. Back to Basics

    Good grief, Rich and Eileen. You are both missing basic points.

    1)How are we going to pay for more city services that will be needed if new housing is built? The city is already running a huge deficit, in which we can’t pay for employee pension and health benefits or road repairs. We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business. Building more housing will put this city farther into the red.
    2) If your argument is that commercial is not expanding bc of the poor economy, then new housing will not sell well either. As business goes, so goes the housing market. No jobs, no houses bought.
    3) How can you honestly believe a concerted effort has been made by the city to woo business here. Look at the Target campaign. The Target folks were treated like lepers by a lot of people in this town – particularly by the downtown businesses. This city has a bad reputation for being anti-business. Let’s turn that around, start giving businesses some incentives to come here.
    4) If you don’t believe high tech is a viable option, then give Sue and the city a reasonable timeline to meet – but by the same token give the city some benchmarks it must meet to make an honest effort to attract businesses here. Look at the TJ debacle. Why would any business want to come to this town? We have not got our collective act together!

  66. Back to Basics

    Good grief, Rich and Eileen. You are both missing basic points.

    1)How are we going to pay for more city services that will be needed if new housing is built? The city is already running a huge deficit, in which we can’t pay for employee pension and health benefits or road repairs. We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business. Building more housing will put this city farther into the red.
    2) If your argument is that commercial is not expanding bc of the poor economy, then new housing will not sell well either. As business goes, so goes the housing market. No jobs, no houses bought.
    3) How can you honestly believe a concerted effort has been made by the city to woo business here. Look at the Target campaign. The Target folks were treated like lepers by a lot of people in this town – particularly by the downtown businesses. This city has a bad reputation for being anti-business. Let’s turn that around, start giving businesses some incentives to come here.
    4) If you don’t believe high tech is a viable option, then give Sue and the city a reasonable timeline to meet – but by the same token give the city some benchmarks it must meet to make an honest effort to attract businesses here. Look at the TJ debacle. Why would any business want to come to this town? We have not got our collective act together!

  67. Back to Basics

    Good grief, Rich and Eileen. You are both missing basic points.

    1)How are we going to pay for more city services that will be needed if new housing is built? The city is already running a huge deficit, in which we can’t pay for employee pension and health benefits or road repairs. We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business. Building more housing will put this city farther into the red.
    2) If your argument is that commercial is not expanding bc of the poor economy, then new housing will not sell well either. As business goes, so goes the housing market. No jobs, no houses bought.
    3) How can you honestly believe a concerted effort has been made by the city to woo business here. Look at the Target campaign. The Target folks were treated like lepers by a lot of people in this town – particularly by the downtown businesses. This city has a bad reputation for being anti-business. Let’s turn that around, start giving businesses some incentives to come here.
    4) If you don’t believe high tech is a viable option, then give Sue and the city a reasonable timeline to meet – but by the same token give the city some benchmarks it must meet to make an honest effort to attract businesses here. Look at the TJ debacle. Why would any business want to come to this town? We have not got our collective act together!

  68. Back to Basics

    Good grief, Rich and Eileen. You are both missing basic points.

    1)How are we going to pay for more city services that will be needed if new housing is built? The city is already running a huge deficit, in which we can’t pay for employee pension and health benefits or road repairs. We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business. Building more housing will put this city farther into the red.
    2) If your argument is that commercial is not expanding bc of the poor economy, then new housing will not sell well either. As business goes, so goes the housing market. No jobs, no houses bought.
    3) How can you honestly believe a concerted effort has been made by the city to woo business here. Look at the Target campaign. The Target folks were treated like lepers by a lot of people in this town – particularly by the downtown businesses. This city has a bad reputation for being anti-business. Let’s turn that around, start giving businesses some incentives to come here.
    4) If you don’t believe high tech is a viable option, then give Sue and the city a reasonable timeline to meet – but by the same token give the city some benchmarks it must meet to make an honest effort to attract businesses here. Look at the TJ debacle. Why would any business want to come to this town? We have not got our collective act together!

  69. Anonymous

    In Defense of Eileen-I find Eileen’s defense made in her last posting (exerpt below*)to be consistent with her proven integrity and her position on reasonable and responsible planning. I worked with Eileen and others on the Measure X Campaign and found that Eileen’s dogged determination and meticulous attention to detail on that team effort contributed much down the home stretch to ensure a crucial victory for responsible future planning in Davis. That victory alone should stop us from gratuituously sniping at each other when we disagree on approaches taken on subsequent projects.

    While watching the coverage of the Cannery issue at the December 2nd City Council Meeting, I saw that a good number of people (7 or 8) spoke in favor of the mixed use proposal for the Cannery Property and only 2 spoke against it. This preponderance of citizen support should have been reported in either the Davis Enterprise or the Peoples Vangard.

    __________________
    * “… as I have stated before, I never have accepted any type of payment from any developer. I advocate for good planning and I think this is a good plan, as do many citizens who participated in designing it….I am being consistent in supporting a position which came from the No on Measure X campaign steering committee. The language regarding support for housing at the former Hunt Wesson site was agreed to by the No on Measure X committee and was in our literature:

  70. Anonymous

    In Defense of Eileen-I find Eileen’s defense made in her last posting (exerpt below*)to be consistent with her proven integrity and her position on reasonable and responsible planning. I worked with Eileen and others on the Measure X Campaign and found that Eileen’s dogged determination and meticulous attention to detail on that team effort contributed much down the home stretch to ensure a crucial victory for responsible future planning in Davis. That victory alone should stop us from gratuituously sniping at each other when we disagree on approaches taken on subsequent projects.

    While watching the coverage of the Cannery issue at the December 2nd City Council Meeting, I saw that a good number of people (7 or 8) spoke in favor of the mixed use proposal for the Cannery Property and only 2 spoke against it. This preponderance of citizen support should have been reported in either the Davis Enterprise or the Peoples Vangard.

    __________________
    * “… as I have stated before, I never have accepted any type of payment from any developer. I advocate for good planning and I think this is a good plan, as do many citizens who participated in designing it….I am being consistent in supporting a position which came from the No on Measure X campaign steering committee. The language regarding support for housing at the former Hunt Wesson site was agreed to by the No on Measure X committee and was in our literature:

  71. Anonymous

    In Defense of Eileen-I find Eileen’s defense made in her last posting (exerpt below*)to be consistent with her proven integrity and her position on reasonable and responsible planning. I worked with Eileen and others on the Measure X Campaign and found that Eileen’s dogged determination and meticulous attention to detail on that team effort contributed much down the home stretch to ensure a crucial victory for responsible future planning in Davis. That victory alone should stop us from gratuituously sniping at each other when we disagree on approaches taken on subsequent projects.

    While watching the coverage of the Cannery issue at the December 2nd City Council Meeting, I saw that a good number of people (7 or 8) spoke in favor of the mixed use proposal for the Cannery Property and only 2 spoke against it. This preponderance of citizen support should have been reported in either the Davis Enterprise or the Peoples Vangard.

    __________________
    * “… as I have stated before, I never have accepted any type of payment from any developer. I advocate for good planning and I think this is a good plan, as do many citizens who participated in designing it….I am being consistent in supporting a position which came from the No on Measure X campaign steering committee. The language regarding support for housing at the former Hunt Wesson site was agreed to by the No on Measure X committee and was in our literature:

  72. Anonymous

    In Defense of Eileen-I find Eileen’s defense made in her last posting (exerpt below*)to be consistent with her proven integrity and her position on reasonable and responsible planning. I worked with Eileen and others on the Measure X Campaign and found that Eileen’s dogged determination and meticulous attention to detail on that team effort contributed much down the home stretch to ensure a crucial victory for responsible future planning in Davis. That victory alone should stop us from gratuituously sniping at each other when we disagree on approaches taken on subsequent projects.

    While watching the coverage of the Cannery issue at the December 2nd City Council Meeting, I saw that a good number of people (7 or 8) spoke in favor of the mixed use proposal for the Cannery Property and only 2 spoke against it. This preponderance of citizen support should have been reported in either the Davis Enterprise or the Peoples Vangard.

    __________________
    * “… as I have stated before, I never have accepted any type of payment from any developer. I advocate for good planning and I think this is a good plan, as do many citizens who participated in designing it….I am being consistent in supporting a position which came from the No on Measure X campaign steering committee. The language regarding support for housing at the former Hunt Wesson site was agreed to by the No on Measure X committee and was in our literature:

  73. Don Shor

    “How can you honestly believe a concerted effort has been made by the city to woo business here. Look at the Target campaign. The Target folks were treated like lepers by a lot of people in this town – particularly by the downtown businesses.”

    Target was actively solicited by city councilmembers. The project was pushed forward by city staff. The city council passed a major zoning change that substantially altered the general plan to allow the project to go forward (and then, correctly in my view, put that before the voters). It seemed like a pretty concerted effort to many of us.
    How would you expect the downtown and other business owners to respond? Locally-owned retail businesses are facing a significant loss of business and income when Target opens. Many will have to lay off employees, and some will probably go under. Do you expect us to greet Target joyfully?

  74. Don Shor

    “How can you honestly believe a concerted effort has been made by the city to woo business here. Look at the Target campaign. The Target folks were treated like lepers by a lot of people in this town – particularly by the downtown businesses.”

    Target was actively solicited by city councilmembers. The project was pushed forward by city staff. The city council passed a major zoning change that substantially altered the general plan to allow the project to go forward (and then, correctly in my view, put that before the voters). It seemed like a pretty concerted effort to many of us.
    How would you expect the downtown and other business owners to respond? Locally-owned retail businesses are facing a significant loss of business and income when Target opens. Many will have to lay off employees, and some will probably go under. Do you expect us to greet Target joyfully?

  75. Don Shor

    “How can you honestly believe a concerted effort has been made by the city to woo business here. Look at the Target campaign. The Target folks were treated like lepers by a lot of people in this town – particularly by the downtown businesses.”

    Target was actively solicited by city councilmembers. The project was pushed forward by city staff. The city council passed a major zoning change that substantially altered the general plan to allow the project to go forward (and then, correctly in my view, put that before the voters). It seemed like a pretty concerted effort to many of us.
    How would you expect the downtown and other business owners to respond? Locally-owned retail businesses are facing a significant loss of business and income when Target opens. Many will have to lay off employees, and some will probably go under. Do you expect us to greet Target joyfully?

  76. Don Shor

    “How can you honestly believe a concerted effort has been made by the city to woo business here. Look at the Target campaign. The Target folks were treated like lepers by a lot of people in this town – particularly by the downtown businesses.”

    Target was actively solicited by city councilmembers. The project was pushed forward by city staff. The city council passed a major zoning change that substantially altered the general plan to allow the project to go forward (and then, correctly in my view, put that before the voters). It seemed like a pretty concerted effort to many of us.
    How would you expect the downtown and other business owners to respond? Locally-owned retail businesses are facing a significant loss of business and income when Target opens. Many will have to lay off employees, and some will probably go under. Do you expect us to greet Target joyfully?

  77. Don Shor

    “We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business.”
    I would urge that the city not count on any revenue from new businesses for a while. There are millions of square feet of unoccupied commercial space in Natomas at the moment. Others have commented on the lack of capital for the high tech and green businesses. Retail vacancy rates are 10 – 15% or more. There is overbuilt retail standing vacant in Dixon and Vacaville, right along the freeway.
    The reality is that there is no new source of revenue for the city, so we are entering an era of fiscal belt-tightening. The rezoning issue for the cannery site is pretty academic for the next few years, so they might as well proceed with the EIR that considers both options.

  78. Don Shor

    “We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business.”
    I would urge that the city not count on any revenue from new businesses for a while. There are millions of square feet of unoccupied commercial space in Natomas at the moment. Others have commented on the lack of capital for the high tech and green businesses. Retail vacancy rates are 10 – 15% or more. There is overbuilt retail standing vacant in Dixon and Vacaville, right along the freeway.
    The reality is that there is no new source of revenue for the city, so we are entering an era of fiscal belt-tightening. The rezoning issue for the cannery site is pretty academic for the next few years, so they might as well proceed with the EIR that considers both options.

  79. Don Shor

    “We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business.”
    I would urge that the city not count on any revenue from new businesses for a while. There are millions of square feet of unoccupied commercial space in Natomas at the moment. Others have commented on the lack of capital for the high tech and green businesses. Retail vacancy rates are 10 – 15% or more. There is overbuilt retail standing vacant in Dixon and Vacaville, right along the freeway.
    The reality is that there is no new source of revenue for the city, so we are entering an era of fiscal belt-tightening. The rezoning issue for the cannery site is pretty academic for the next few years, so they might as well proceed with the EIR that considers both options.

  80. Don Shor

    “We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business.”
    I would urge that the city not count on any revenue from new businesses for a while. There are millions of square feet of unoccupied commercial space in Natomas at the moment. Others have commented on the lack of capital for the high tech and green businesses. Retail vacancy rates are 10 – 15% or more. There is overbuilt retail standing vacant in Dixon and Vacaville, right along the freeway.
    The reality is that there is no new source of revenue for the city, so we are entering an era of fiscal belt-tightening. The rezoning issue for the cannery site is pretty academic for the next few years, so they might as well proceed with the EIR that considers both options.

  81. Rich Rifkin

    B2B: “Good grief, Rich. You are missing basic points.”

    Uh-oh.

    “1)How are we going to pay for more city services that will be needed if new housing is built?”

    As I said above, we need to consider how any project affects the city’s finances. (I have never advocated for or against the Lewis proposal.)

    If a project at the cannery were designed as I described just above your post, it would be a boon to the city’s treasury. (The key is to not build sub-market housing.)

    “We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business.”

    I agree, but I simply caution that it is currently unrealistic to expect much new investment, due to the general state of our economy.

    “Building more housing will put this city farther into the red.”

    Not so with market-rate live/work housing. It would be a positive for the city’s coffers. (However, I don’t think in this economy the demand for housing would justify it being built soon, either.)

    “2) If your argument is that commercial is not expanding bc of the poor economy, then new housing will not sell well either.”

    Agreed.

    “If you don’t believe high tech is a viable option …”

    I don't think in this economy it is likely. As I said above, I think an R&-) park (with some live/work) is a good option in the long-run for the cannery, as long as all of its traffic is not forced onto Covell.

    “Look at the TJ debacle. Why would any business want to come to this town?”

    Because a lot of Davis people fit the profile of Trader Joe’s shoppers. Once TJ’s builds a store here, I’m sure it will do well.

  82. Rich Rifkin

    B2B: “Good grief, Rich. You are missing basic points.”

    Uh-oh.

    “1)How are we going to pay for more city services that will be needed if new housing is built?”

    As I said above, we need to consider how any project affects the city’s finances. (I have never advocated for or against the Lewis proposal.)

    If a project at the cannery were designed as I described just above your post, it would be a boon to the city’s treasury. (The key is to not build sub-market housing.)

    “We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business.”

    I agree, but I simply caution that it is currently unrealistic to expect much new investment, due to the general state of our economy.

    “Building more housing will put this city farther into the red.”

    Not so with market-rate live/work housing. It would be a positive for the city’s coffers. (However, I don’t think in this economy the demand for housing would justify it being built soon, either.)

    “2) If your argument is that commercial is not expanding bc of the poor economy, then new housing will not sell well either.”

    Agreed.

    “If you don’t believe high tech is a viable option …”

    I don't think in this economy it is likely. As I said above, I think an R&-) park (with some live/work) is a good option in the long-run for the cannery, as long as all of its traffic is not forced onto Covell.

    “Look at the TJ debacle. Why would any business want to come to this town?”

    Because a lot of Davis people fit the profile of Trader Joe’s shoppers. Once TJ’s builds a store here, I’m sure it will do well.

  83. Rich Rifkin

    B2B: “Good grief, Rich. You are missing basic points.”

    Uh-oh.

    “1)How are we going to pay for more city services that will be needed if new housing is built?”

    As I said above, we need to consider how any project affects the city’s finances. (I have never advocated for or against the Lewis proposal.)

    If a project at the cannery were designed as I described just above your post, it would be a boon to the city’s treasury. (The key is to not build sub-market housing.)

    “We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business.”

    I agree, but I simply caution that it is currently unrealistic to expect much new investment, due to the general state of our economy.

    “Building more housing will put this city farther into the red.”

    Not so with market-rate live/work housing. It would be a positive for the city’s coffers. (However, I don’t think in this economy the demand for housing would justify it being built soon, either.)

    “2) If your argument is that commercial is not expanding bc of the poor economy, then new housing will not sell well either.”

    Agreed.

    “If you don’t believe high tech is a viable option …”

    I don't think in this economy it is likely. As I said above, I think an R&-) park (with some live/work) is a good option in the long-run for the cannery, as long as all of its traffic is not forced onto Covell.

    “Look at the TJ debacle. Why would any business want to come to this town?”

    Because a lot of Davis people fit the profile of Trader Joe’s shoppers. Once TJ’s builds a store here, I’m sure it will do well.

  84. Rich Rifkin

    B2B: “Good grief, Rich. You are missing basic points.”

    Uh-oh.

    “1)How are we going to pay for more city services that will be needed if new housing is built?”

    As I said above, we need to consider how any project affects the city’s finances. (I have never advocated for or against the Lewis proposal.)

    If a project at the cannery were designed as I described just above your post, it would be a boon to the city’s treasury. (The key is to not build sub-market housing.)

    “We need an infusion of tax revenue from new business.”

    I agree, but I simply caution that it is currently unrealistic to expect much new investment, due to the general state of our economy.

    “Building more housing will put this city farther into the red.”

    Not so with market-rate live/work housing. It would be a positive for the city’s coffers. (However, I don’t think in this economy the demand for housing would justify it being built soon, either.)

    “2) If your argument is that commercial is not expanding bc of the poor economy, then new housing will not sell well either.”

    Agreed.

    “If you don’t believe high tech is a viable option …”

    I don't think in this economy it is likely. As I said above, I think an R&-) park (with some live/work) is a good option in the long-run for the cannery, as long as all of its traffic is not forced onto Covell.

    “Look at the TJ debacle. Why would any business want to come to this town?”

    Because a lot of Davis people fit the profile of Trader Joe’s shoppers. Once TJ’s builds a store here, I’m sure it will do well.

  85. For More Business

    “How would you expect the downtown and other business owners to respond? Locally-owned retail businesses are facing a significant loss of business and income when Target opens. Many will have to lay off employees, and some will probably go under. Do you expect us to greet Target joyfully?”

    I expect the downtown businesses to become partners with any new business. For instance, run a shuttle between the downtown and Target. Join Target in donating to community projects. Embrace Target, not fight any new business that comes to town.

    I would have thought the downtown would have learned a lesson after the Borders debacle. When certain downtown businesses get nasty, and obstruct other business from coming to town, I don’t shop at those stores that resorted to anti-competition tactics. The campaign by Avid Reader against Borders was dirty. The Davis Food Co-op did the same thing to the grocery store in Westlake (forget which particular one) – and I don’t shop at Davis Food Co-op either.

    We need more business, not less. More business, more tax revenue. Unlike Rich Rifkin, I do not think this town needs any more housing right now, until it attracts some significant amount of business that generates tax revenue to pay for city services.

  86. For More Business

    “How would you expect the downtown and other business owners to respond? Locally-owned retail businesses are facing a significant loss of business and income when Target opens. Many will have to lay off employees, and some will probably go under. Do you expect us to greet Target joyfully?”

    I expect the downtown businesses to become partners with any new business. For instance, run a shuttle between the downtown and Target. Join Target in donating to community projects. Embrace Target, not fight any new business that comes to town.

    I would have thought the downtown would have learned a lesson after the Borders debacle. When certain downtown businesses get nasty, and obstruct other business from coming to town, I don’t shop at those stores that resorted to anti-competition tactics. The campaign by Avid Reader against Borders was dirty. The Davis Food Co-op did the same thing to the grocery store in Westlake (forget which particular one) – and I don’t shop at Davis Food Co-op either.

    We need more business, not less. More business, more tax revenue. Unlike Rich Rifkin, I do not think this town needs any more housing right now, until it attracts some significant amount of business that generates tax revenue to pay for city services.

  87. For More Business

    “How would you expect the downtown and other business owners to respond? Locally-owned retail businesses are facing a significant loss of business and income when Target opens. Many will have to lay off employees, and some will probably go under. Do you expect us to greet Target joyfully?”

    I expect the downtown businesses to become partners with any new business. For instance, run a shuttle between the downtown and Target. Join Target in donating to community projects. Embrace Target, not fight any new business that comes to town.

    I would have thought the downtown would have learned a lesson after the Borders debacle. When certain downtown businesses get nasty, and obstruct other business from coming to town, I don’t shop at those stores that resorted to anti-competition tactics. The campaign by Avid Reader against Borders was dirty. The Davis Food Co-op did the same thing to the grocery store in Westlake (forget which particular one) – and I don’t shop at Davis Food Co-op either.

    We need more business, not less. More business, more tax revenue. Unlike Rich Rifkin, I do not think this town needs any more housing right now, until it attracts some significant amount of business that generates tax revenue to pay for city services.

  88. For More Business

    “How would you expect the downtown and other business owners to respond? Locally-owned retail businesses are facing a significant loss of business and income when Target opens. Many will have to lay off employees, and some will probably go under. Do you expect us to greet Target joyfully?”

    I expect the downtown businesses to become partners with any new business. For instance, run a shuttle between the downtown and Target. Join Target in donating to community projects. Embrace Target, not fight any new business that comes to town.

    I would have thought the downtown would have learned a lesson after the Borders debacle. When certain downtown businesses get nasty, and obstruct other business from coming to town, I don’t shop at those stores that resorted to anti-competition tactics. The campaign by Avid Reader against Borders was dirty. The Davis Food Co-op did the same thing to the grocery store in Westlake (forget which particular one) – and I don’t shop at Davis Food Co-op either.

    We need more business, not less. More business, more tax revenue. Unlike Rich Rifkin, I do not think this town needs any more housing right now, until it attracts some significant amount of business that generates tax revenue to pay for city services.

  89. Anonymous

    I agree with Don Shor. The concept of thinking that we can fill a hundred acre business park in this economic situation is not realistic no matter how much you want to wish on that star. The commercial vacancy rates are climbing all over. Even in Davis there are at least five vacant store fronts in Oak Tree Plaza and, sadly, the DISC sport rink on Second St. just went out of business. In fact, all of these are spaces available now for the green high tech to fill now, so where are they? What build a giant high tech park which will stay vacant too?

    What businesses would want to come to Davis with the anti-business statement this Cannery Park episode has made? This project wound up getting waylaid after the City Council and city staff encouraged them to move forward with mixed use for four years, the Business and Economic Commission and the Planning Commission said go forward, and after the public gave a lot of input it and shown support for it. Davis is becoming a mine field for businesses.

  90. Anonymous

    I agree with Don Shor. The concept of thinking that we can fill a hundred acre business park in this economic situation is not realistic no matter how much you want to wish on that star. The commercial vacancy rates are climbing all over. Even in Davis there are at least five vacant store fronts in Oak Tree Plaza and, sadly, the DISC sport rink on Second St. just went out of business. In fact, all of these are spaces available now for the green high tech to fill now, so where are they? What build a giant high tech park which will stay vacant too?

    What businesses would want to come to Davis with the anti-business statement this Cannery Park episode has made? This project wound up getting waylaid after the City Council and city staff encouraged them to move forward with mixed use for four years, the Business and Economic Commission and the Planning Commission said go forward, and after the public gave a lot of input it and shown support for it. Davis is becoming a mine field for businesses.

  91. Anonymous

    I agree with Don Shor. The concept of thinking that we can fill a hundred acre business park in this economic situation is not realistic no matter how much you want to wish on that star. The commercial vacancy rates are climbing all over. Even in Davis there are at least five vacant store fronts in Oak Tree Plaza and, sadly, the DISC sport rink on Second St. just went out of business. In fact, all of these are spaces available now for the green high tech to fill now, so where are they? What build a giant high tech park which will stay vacant too?

    What businesses would want to come to Davis with the anti-business statement this Cannery Park episode has made? This project wound up getting waylaid after the City Council and city staff encouraged them to move forward with mixed use for four years, the Business and Economic Commission and the Planning Commission said go forward, and after the public gave a lot of input it and shown support for it. Davis is becoming a mine field for businesses.

  92. Anonymous

    I agree with Don Shor. The concept of thinking that we can fill a hundred acre business park in this economic situation is not realistic no matter how much you want to wish on that star. The commercial vacancy rates are climbing all over. Even in Davis there are at least five vacant store fronts in Oak Tree Plaza and, sadly, the DISC sport rink on Second St. just went out of business. In fact, all of these are spaces available now for the green high tech to fill now, so where are they? What build a giant high tech park which will stay vacant too?

    What businesses would want to come to Davis with the anti-business statement this Cannery Park episode has made? This project wound up getting waylaid after the City Council and city staff encouraged them to move forward with mixed use for four years, the Business and Economic Commission and the Planning Commission said go forward, and after the public gave a lot of input it and shown support for it. Davis is becoming a mine field for businesses.

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