Last week, the Davis Planning Commission listened to staff and the applicant for the Cannery project, in discussion of the Draft EIR.
The 100-acre property would see a project consisting of 547 residential dwelling units, with an average density of 9.5 units per acre. In addition, approximately 45 accessory dwelling units are proposed.
As staff noted, a number of the impacts could be “reduced to a less-than-significant level after mitigation.” However, “project-specific and cumulative impacts to air quality, fire safety, noise and traffic were found to be significant and unavoidable.”
The report notes that there would be violations of air quality standards due to vehicle trips which were “significant and unavoidable even after mitigation,” cumulative air quality impacts, and the placement of residences outside the five-minute fire response time
The city has attempted to prioritize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Despite this goal, the Cannery project, as currently proposed, has specific features that would likely cause emissions to increase.
The likelihood of new residents simply getting into their vehicles, driving onto the highway and ending up at their jobs at either UC Davis or Sacramento would go against the principles espoused in the city’s Climate Action report.
The configuration of the site itself, nestled against the railroad tracks on the western boundary, with the only vehicular access on the already-heavily congested Covell Blvd., would seem problematic, at best, for residential development. And yet the current owners of the site have long argued against other uses, including the one for which it is currently zoned as the former site of the Hunt-Wesson Cannery.
These concerns were echoed last week at the Planning Commission meeting by members of the bicycling community.
Mont Hubbard, speaking for the board of Davis Bicycles!, told the commission that the board voted only to support the project if there were two grade-separated crossings.
As he noted, given the configuration, “the only worse thing that can happen is to have a river on the north,” he joked.
“The bad nature of the site means that the developer should expect to mitigate the air quality, greenhouse gas, transportation adverse impacts,” Mr. Hubbard said. “An obvious way to do that is to provide a way for people to use bicycles and pedestrian transportation more.”
“We’re only going to meet our greenhouse gas reduction standards if we increase non-motorized transportation,” Mont Hubbard said. “Right now, 45% of our greenhouse gasses come from that and we have to increase the non-motorized transportation rather than decrease it, as we believe this project would do as presently planned.”
He added, “It simply isn’t going to happen if they have to cross Covell Blvd. on foot or by bicycle. The way to get people to use non-motorized transportation is to provide them a safe avenue to do that.”
As Robb Davis, who serves on the Bicycle Advisory Commission, noted, the current plan is fraught with danger.
“The problem that I’m seeing with the project as it’s laid out now is basically we have one grade-separated crossing on the southwest side of the project,” he told the commission.
The result of that configuration, he said, is that it will lead people to the H Street Tunnel, which many consider a dangerous piece of bicycle infrastructure.
“Whatever happens with that grade-separated crossing it’s going to require people to use an existing piece of bicycle infrastructure that is arguably the worst in the city, which is the H Street Tunnel,” he said. “Any connection between the east and the west parts of Davis, bicycle wise, will use that tunnel.”
He noted the problems, “I’m surprised that the EIR does not have a negative impact for bicycling facilities because all traffic – one way or the other – is going to have to go through that tunnel. It’s dangerous.”
He continued, “It’s very abrupt and it’s very difficult to find funding from any transportation source to improve that tunnel to make it safer.”
“The bike advisory commission has already determined that it’s probably the priority project to improve that tunnel,” Mr. Davis added.
Mr. Davis urged the support for getting a guarantee from the developer that we will improve the tunnel.
“We need an aggressive promotion of alternatives to automobiles, not just the status quo,” he said. To get that we need more than to make it possible for pedestrians and bikes to cross that street. If children are going to cross that street to go to school, then they need safety.”
He then argued for a second grade-separated crossing to the west, which of course would require that Union Pacific buy in to the confirmation.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that ConAgra likes to note that Union Pacific’s corporate headquarters are next to theirs in Nebraska, most observers believe such a crossing is unlikely.
Steve Tracy, however, is concerned that the current configuration will dump a huge amount of traffic onto the already-busy intersection at Covell and J St.
Bikes will have a choice, the first being the planned route. That will be problematic, given its poor visibility from the street, exiting on the southwest corner of the project and away from homes, and going under the bridge connected with the H Street Tunnel.
The other choice would be the busy intersection with high traffic counts.
Surveying the accident data, Mr. Tracy argued that this is not the safest intersection. Over the last decade there have been 35 accidents just on the section of J Street between 8th and Covell. 15 of these involved bicyclists.
He argued the need for a grade-separated crossing at the southeast corner to get under Covell Blvd and get bicycles to L St.
“They’re necessary to get the kind of mode share for bicyclists that we need,” he said. “Otherwise these 500 homes will be dumping heavy volumes of traffic out into a single intersection and the bicyclists will be mixed into that environment. It’s not a comfortable situation.”
At the meeting, Catherine Hess reiterated that the “No Project” alternative was superior environmentally to the project.
As the DEIR concluded, “The No Build Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, as required by CEQA, when the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the others must be identified.”
Therefore, they find that “the Site Reconfiguration Alternative is the next environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project.”
However, the site reconfiguration alternative “would not meet all of the project objectives identified by the City, in that it would not provide for a wide range of housing types, including low density housing, to support the City’s goal of providing an inclusive multigenerational approach to residential development.”
There are a number of critical issues that remain to be resolved with this project, that many observers believe is simply a rehash of most of the newer subdivisions in Davis, lacking any real creativity or innovation.
Unfortunately, the dynamics of council may be such that an insufficient number of councilmembers will be willing to truly press the developer to make the development more innovative and bold – that is, if you believe that this is the best use for the site, and the best time for new housing of this type in Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Maybe I missed it, but what did the Planning Commission decide?
They just gave their comments, as far as I could tell they took no action.
Since I am quoted here let me make two clarifications:
1. I made it clear to the Planning Commission that I was not speaking for the BAC about this project. I routinely reveal my role as a Commissioner when I speak but always follow it with the caveat that I am not speaking on behalf of the BAC (unless I am charged to do so, which was not the case here). The BAC and SPAC will meet jointly this evening (Thursday) to review the project and EIR.
2. I have not reviewed the tape of the meeting and perhaps I mis-spoke but the second grade separated crossing would not be to the west but rather to the east–under Covell. There are options in that direction.
FYI: One of the options presented by the applicant for the southwest grade-separated crossing is to cross the tracks via a bridge over the tracks. Personally, I think that option is highly unlikely given the cost.
Thanks
“The city has attempted to prioritize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Despite this goal, the Cannery project, as currently proposed, has specific features that would likely cause emissions to increase.”
In reality it depends on the current carbon footprint of the people who ultimately move there verses their future carbon footprint. If it shortens commutes it might have a positive impact overall despite what it might do in any man made jurisdiction.
sure mr. toad, if you want to discount completely the fact that neither the project itself nor the location are ideal at minimizing carbon emissions. what you are only considering is one net effect – whether building the houses overall on a regional or even global basis leads to a net increase or reduction in emissions. the better analysis, and more feasible, is to minimize the carbon reduction by locating the project in a location where people either (a) have closer commutes to work or better yet, do not have to use a car to commute and (B) the form is such where people are incentivized to get out of their cars and use alternative modes of transportation. your analysis falls short, because it looks entirely on one aspect and not at all on the other.
What the Cannery project needs is another way in and out for cars and bikes. I tunnel under the tracks in the NW corner just like the Richards tunnel in to downtown would be perfect. Without the second way in and out it will be traffic hell (for cars and bikes) every morning and evening…
South of Davis – I cannot say for certain but I think a tunnel under the tracks in the NW corner would not work because there is a drainage slough running along the tracks there (east side of tracks). This slough continues all the way to Covell. An at-grade crossing in that area would be great but, given what we know about UP they are very unlikely to grant a request for such a crossing. I am not even sure they would be willing to grant an at-grade emergency vehicle access point. Building a bridge over the tracks anywhere is very costly.
Unlike Robb, I can say for sure. The ditch to the west takes the entire drainage outfall from the Old North Davis (sic) and adjoining areas. Making grade for path approaches, not to exceed 5%, would require a huge amount of land that is not available to the west. It would require a significant reconfiguration of the proposed project The concept is ‘dead as a doornail’.
A future grade-separated crossing is possible near the intersection of Anderson and F (an overcrossing of the SPRR property and F Street. Not likely to come to fruition, as this project stupidly does not reserve property for a connection to the north, in the future, and would require acquiring right of way from the Covell Village site, and/or allowing some development on the CV site.
But, from an engineering/practical basis, that OC is the only feasible hope for improvements to connect to the west of this site.
Thanks hpierce – Glad to have confirmation.
Quick question: do you have an opinion about “Off-Site Bike Path Option 2” in the proposal? It is an OC of the tracks north of Covell. It looks like a ramp up, 90 degree turn over the tracks, another 90 degree turn, then ramp down to the existing west side Class 1 bike path that goes under Covell onto H Street by the Little League fields. That is the option I refer to above and I just don’t think it will happen because of cost.
Thanks for the the input on an OC option to the north.
Robb.. have been having a problem finding the site plan you refer to, on the City web site. Give me a link, and I’ll share my opinion.
This pdf contains the three proposed options for the grade separated crossing in the southwest corner of the project area. The first one is the one they are proposing but there are two additional options. I am asking about the second option. These are only drawings so this may not be enough but, frankly, I did not find any further description in the project narrative.
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Cannery/SPAC BAC Meeting/2g-Bike-Path-Options1-3.pdf[/url]
Here is the link to the plan and EIR [url]http://community-development.cityofdavis.org/current-planning/featured-current-planning-applications/the-cannery/environmental-review[/url]
The project description is in 2.0 and the bike options are in there.
Thanks
The links I just posted do not work… I will try again…
Here is the first link:
[url]http://tinyurl.com/c3yf5zy[/url]
Here is the second:
[url]http://tinyurl.com/bwk5nj9[/url]
hpierce said. . .
[i]”But, from an engineering/practical basis, that OC is the only feasible hope for improvements to connect to the west of this site.”[/i]
That statement is not entirely correct hpierce. One other engineering/practical connection to the west is Yolo Rail Relocation Project (YRRP) which includes the construction of a new eight-mile rail connection through Yolo County to the east of Davis between the Union Pacific main line parallel to I-80 and the existing Sierra Northern line and California Northern line in Woodland. This new construction provides flood protection benefit to the Region through the removal of the Fremont Trestle, as well as transportation and safety improvements through the removal of the existing California Northern line that runs from downtown Davis and Woodland and includes the track adjacent to the Cannery site.
Matt – When, if ever, will the YRRP take place? Is there a timeline in place? The project would obviously be a game changer not only for the Cannery site but also for a potential Class 1 bike path between Davis and Woodland. Is it, realistically, going to happen in a timeline that matters for this project?
“…and more feasible, is to minimize the carbon reduction by locating the project in a location where people either (a) have closer commutes to work or better yet, do not have to use a car to commute and (B) the form is such where people are incentivized to get out of their cars and use alternative modes of transportation.”
(a) Where did you have in mind? The cannery, by the way, is closer to UCD than many other parts of town.
(B) I have a friend who lives on L Street south of Covell and takes the bus to work at his state job every work day.
Robb… your links were helpful. You asked for my opinion of Option 2., a bike/ped crossing of the bioswale, the UPRR tracks and the existing drainage channel. The west portion is the most problematic.
The clearance from the highest track, to the bottom of the OC structure, is, as I recall, a minimum of 18 feet (might be 20 or more). Assume the distance between the bottom of the structure and the travel surface is 4 feet (more like 5). The tracks are, as I recall, about 3 feet higher than the existing BP grades on the west (let’s use 2 feet). Therefore, the elevation difference between “touchdown” on the west side, and the west end of the surface on the structure is between 24 and 28 feet. Let’s use 24 feet (best case).
The MAXIMUM slope that can be used is 5%. That means that the length of the westerly ramp would have to be at least 500 feet (you need some flat areas, coming down the slope to meet ADA requirement for that long a ramp. A ramp, 500 foot long, at 5% is a good workout, but not real conducive to younger and/or less experienced bicyclists (going uphill at least, going down the kids would love it! [hope they have their helmets on…]). There is no scale shown on the Option 2 diagram, but doesn’t look like the down-ramp is anywhere near 500 feet long, and if the higher numbers are used, it’s getting close to 600 feet.
Unless right of way was acquired from Davis Rents (current name?), and any other property owners on that side, the ramp would obliterate the existing bike/ped path entirely. [b]In addition[/b], the ramps would pretty much have to be 100% structure (no room for earth fill), so the costs would be huge, compared to most of our grade separated crossings.
Looks like a pretty, ‘do-able’ option on a picture, not so much if you actually showed what it would take, in the real world to do it. As far as I know, there is no effort to date to look at the logistics or cost by the applicant or the City. Suspect it was offered to shut people up, and once the project got approved, folks could say, “oh shoot! guess that won’t work, practically and/or financially.
This is contrasted to an OC near Anderson/F, where fills could be used for most of the ramps. Not near the design challenge, would not obliterate existing bike/ped routes, and would be a helluva lot cheaper.
My opinion: dismiss Option 2 out of hand, unless there is more preliminary engineering done to find holes in my “back of the napkin” analysis.
Matt.. wanna make a bet whether that rail line is superseded by an alternate route prior to say 2050? Our heirs would probably have to settle up on that one. I remember being in on meetings to discuss that “project” about 7 years ago, and have seen no more recent signs that it is truly proceeding, including CEQA, County approvals, acquisition of R/W, etc., etc., etc.
Interesting concept, but not one that would change the opinions I expressed earlier, and given the time frames, I contend that the statements I made (that you responded to), are indeed ‘factual’. Anyone who thinks that could be an answer to the current project must have recently visited Colorado and taken advantage of their new law concerning the recreational use of certain vegetative matter.
hpierce – I don’t disagree with your analysis that the exit being considered to the SW is problematic and that an OC exit to the NW near Anderson/F would be easier and cheaper. But for me the important point is that most of the people in the development aren’t going to want to go NW. Shopping, schools and other attractive activities are to the south. That’s why outlets (more than one) are needed at the south end across Covell. The Anderson/F one, no matter how easy, just doesn’t satisfy that need and I can’t imagine folks using it to get to the rest of Davis.
Robb and hpierce, I first got exposed to the Rail Relocation project three years ago after a comment by then Council member Steve Souza. After doing a fair amount of research it was pretty clear that the project couldn’t find a “champion” on the basis of the transportation elements alone. It wasn’t a money loser, but also wasn’t enough of a money maker to generate excitement. So I put it into my cerebral filing system and moved on.
Things changed considerably in February 2012 when the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) was unveiled in its first public meeting. In one fell swoop what was (from a value perspective) solely a transportation project became a combined transportation and flood protection project. The cost of the project didn’t go up, but the parties who saw real benefit from the project more than doubled the value the project would deliver.
There is lots of heavy lifting left to do, but probably the biggest impediment to the project is the broadly held perception that its past status as a Don Quixote “Tilting at Windmills” is still its current status. The current round of efforts, which began with that February 2012 CVFPP public meeting, are paying close attention to how the project will “pencil out” and also how the components of the project synergize with one another. Those efforts include all three cities in Yolo County, the County itself, the CVFPP process, the City of Sacramento, USDA, the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District, CalTrans and a number of the region’s Reclamation Districts. There is a lot of “two steps forward and one step back” but the value of the project to the Region, not just the City or the County is what has transformed it from a windmill tilt into a serious planning effort.