In our scenario where Cannery ends up on the ballot for the voters to decide, the critical swing issue might be traffic and circulation. The project itself, nestled against the railroad tracks, presents a logistical challenge without western access. In addition, to the east is the Covell Property, and right now it is preventing eastern access.
That means all access to the project is on the southern end, on Covell Blvd. The bicycling community has pushed for two access points that could take bicyclists under Covell Blvd onto existing bike paths, but those access points are also problematic.
It is conceivable that this issue would represent the key, the difference between another failed land use election and a successful project.
As the Davis Enterprise reported on Sunday, in the second portion of their series, “For every bicycle that’s ridden out of The Cannery, it could mean one less trip by one of those 10,595 cars. But some in the community are concerned that the bicycle access to and from the neighborhood would not adequately accomplish pulling residents out of their cars and onto their bikes.”
The problem that those in the bike community cite is “the connectivity to the surrounding infrastructure on foot or on bike” which, “for some, leaves a lot to be desired.”
The Enterprise notes, “Planners estimate about 1,000 trips per day for bicycles and pedestrians combined, or an 8 percent mode share compared to Davis’ 22 percent citywide bicycle mode share that has, in part, earned it honors as a platinum-level bicycle-friendly community from the League of American Bicyclists.”
While some have suggested this to be a conservative estimate, others have argued that, given the access issues, it actually may be too high.
The Enterprise notes that “Robb Davis, Bicycle Advisory Commission member, said that the commission rejected the plan that would force bicyclists to cross under the East Covell overpass and then climb over the East Covell overpass, as far as the southwest corner bicycle access.”
“The intent is to swiftly connect people there to other neighborhoods,” Mr. Davis said this week. “(There’s a) significant constraint right on the edge, which is the railroad. Kids are not going to easily be able to get over into the Northstar area for example. There’s not going to be a quick and easy way to do it.”
Mr. Davis added: “If you don’t get the connections out of there right, it’s going to be difficult for people, especially if there are children involved. It’s going to be difficult to get parents to feel comfortable.”
George Phillips, representing the ConAgra team, noted that they just have “a fundamental difference in opinion.”
While that is likely true, the problem is that putting the bike community at odds with your project could be detrimental and could, in fact, play a pivotal role come election time.
Not only does this put the project at odds with the bike community, it puts them at odds with the mayor who said that if the project does not improve the bike connectivity issues, he will oppose the project.
He told the paper he wants to ensure “the design… enhances the Davis lifestyle” and that he sees good circulation as lessening the impact on traffic.
That brings us to the 800-pound gorilla in the room – the property to the east, the Covell Village property for which development was defeated in 2005. The owners of that property, now called the North Davis Land Trust, have been pushing for some time for joint development of the property.
However, Lydia Delis-Schlosser, a representative from NDLT, told the paper that the company “has absolutely no interest in developing the land any longer and that the plan is only for the betterment of the community, if not The Cannery.”
The Vanguard hopes to meet with Ms. Delis-Schlosser later this week, but that statement appears to be somewhat different from what the company has told others in recent weeks.
The paper goes on to report, “North Davis Land Company would donate easements on the adjacent property and expect ConAgra to front the cost of the work – it appears that the ConAgra project team isn’t interested.”
According to Mr. Phillips and other sources, they have estimated that will cost between $8 and $9 million to make those changes. Mr. Phillips told the paper, “Adding the infrastructure to its proposal would make the project infeasible for ConAgra.”
“NDLC’s infrastructure proposal is intended to provide safe bike and pedestrian connectivity between The Cannery project and surrounding areas, to improve traffic conditions along Covell Boulevard, to improve drainage, and to provide a better emergency access option,” wrote Whitman Manley, attorney for the land company, in a letter to the city.
“The Cannery project will benefit from these changes. So will the city as a whole,” the paper quotes the attorney.
One of the unanswered questions is how much money ConAgra expects to make on this project. That is certainly a huge question going forward, as ConAgra is pressured to make additional concessions in order to get the project approved by council – and likely the voters, as well.
In the Vanguard‘s analysis, fixing the circulation issues may not by itself win the election, but it will likely remove the bike community from a long list of community groups likely to oppose the project and it may gain the mayor’s vote, as well.
The project likely can get through council, but on a 3-2 vote, without the changes. The key vote would likely be that of Lucas Frerichs, as Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson seemed eager at the last meeting to push the project through as proposed.
Without the circulation issue, the opponents would have to rely on objections to new housing in general, site-specific concerns, and the question about economic development to defeat the project. It could still be defeated under that scenario, but it is far less certain.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Davis deserves first class bike circulation and options to all areas of town from this project since that is its biggest weakness. The City cant afford to pay for it but will be granting a virtual monopoly on new home construction to ConAgra. Davis parents are very picky about bicycle safety and any inconvenience for bikes will lead to car trips. ConAgra has a market capitalization of $14.69 billion dollars. This project is an exit-strategy for this huge corporation. They will be long gone by the time the community realizes that cars are the only safe option for travel. Make bike safety and grade seperated connections for bikes a condition of approval.
I find NDLC’s statement that it “has absolutely no interest in developing the land any longer” a bit hard to swallow, but I can certainly understand why they’d be willing to donate the easements for same in exchange for millions of dollars of bike/ped improvements along their frontage.
500 homes x $450,000 median value/home = $225 million
Add in the value of the commercial buildings figure a wild guess of $75 million. Maybe someone who knows can estimate better. Total value $300 million. Subtract development and construction costs and you can estimate if they can pay for more access improvements.
Just watch out that they don’t put in cattle guards. That would mean their plan B would be to put in a feed lot.
Here come the veiled threats.
The easements that Covell Village is demanding to “donate” for $10,000,000 in infrastucture improvements on their property are not limited to the frontage. They want a road (for “emergency vehicle access”) that runs internally from the roundabout to Picasso. This would create an infill site fronting Covell.
Silent…..Wouldn’t that be subject to a Measure R vote?
the City controls development of NDLC’s land. It is no more or less infill before or after bike path or emergency access improvements- the location of the property does not change and never will. If that site is ever developed the City should demand similar improvements for bike circulation.
The Covell site is subject to a Measure R vote, would roads or bike paths that are proposed on that land also be subject to a vote?
yeahmyam: Don’t you find it odd that Covell Village is trying to force all that infrastructure onto ag land?
You make the case yourself – “the City should demand similar improvements” if the site is ever developed.
So we have the Covell Village rep talking out of both sides of her mouth. They never want to develop BUT lets put down all this concrete on ag land that just happpens to correspond to the circulation plan for Covell Village.
Their claim that it is for the “good of the community” is one of the most cynical statements that Covell Village has made in the last 10 years.
“The Covell site is subject to a Measure R vote, would roads or bike paths that are proposed on that land also be subject to a vote?”
No because roads don’t require a zoning change.
Great question GI. If a council majority and the adjacent land owner force the applicant to build infrastructure on ag land, does it require a Measure R vote?
Covell Village has been working for a decade to undermine all planning efforts on this site, so trying to force the proposal into a Measure R vote may be their preferred outcome. If they lose, at least they get a shot at a $10,000,000 freebie.
“Great question GI. If a council majority and the adjacent land owner force the applicant to build infrastructure on ag land, does it require a Measure R vote?”
Again, only if it requires a zoning change and roads do not. Neither do easements.
Okay I made that up but wasn’t somebody talking about a methane generator?
DG: Good to know. I don’t think this fact will be of any comfort to those that want to keep Covell Village in agriculture.
Since the Covell Village rep says they have “absolutely no interest in developing the land any longer” perhaps the Covell Village opponents should call their bluff and put an initiative on the ballot to annex the property and put it into permanent open space.
[I]I find NDLC’s statement that it “has absolutely no interest in developing the land any longer” a bit hard to swallow, but I can certainly understand why they’d be willing to donate the easements for same in exchange for millions of dollars of bike/ped improvements along their frontage.[/I]
Absolutely. This was a great move though… it benefits them and it benefits the community. ConAgra should consider it a cost of doing business in Davis. It sounds like a great compromise… you get to rezone your parcel for more lucrative residential acreage, and you have to connect bike and pedestrian paths to the city’s infrastructure for the same.
A final point… this would serve to increase the property values on the developed Cannery site. The developer would recoup much of the investment required to build this infrastructure. Realtors will gin it up as a fantastic feature where families can bike safely to schools, shopping and the core area.
Mr. Toad, have you ever played monopoly? There is money left on the table for ConAgra in your analysis and even more with monopoly pricing. Silent Majority, I agree that the statement that ex-Covell Village never wants to develop is a joke (everybody knows that) but that is not the issue. As to a bike path ruining farmland- my guess is 500 houses on Cannery will have a similar impact on adjacent farming. You need to get the improvements when you have the opportunity. Make Covell Village reimburse ConAgra for their share if they ever develop. You are gung-ho for development of the Cannery but very “progressive” when you talk about protecting Covell Village- the group of developers that never want to develop.
It seems that the biggest fear is the possible development of the Covell Village site, even to the point of opposing bike lanes and emergency access roads.
I would support taking a look at developing a plan for both ConAgra and Covell Village together, so that there could be a mix of industrial and housing. If opponents want to have a vote on ConAgra and we have to pay for it anyway, then let’s look at a broader, more innovative plan that would serve the community better.
yeahmyam: Cannery is proposing a grade separated crossing at the SW corner across from the Little League fields – conveniently left off the Covell Village graphic run by the Davis Enterprise instead of presenting the applicant’s actual proposal.
Please clarify. Is Covell Village the group of developers that never want to develop or the developers that everyone knows are lying? Since you seem to be fine with growth-inducing infrastructure on Covell Village, should we assume the former?
Silent majority: Why are you turning this into a conversation about Covell Village? If you are so interested, then I would be open to looking at the land for possible development. But nastiness directed toward the owners of the land is not something that should be woven into the discussion. Could we get a better plan if parts of Covell Village were included in the plan for ConAgra?
Ryan: Sorry. I’m not trying to be nasty. Covell Village turned this into a conversation about Covell Village. The CV agenda has been to stop Cannery for the last decade. Circulation appears to be their latest tactic (they seem to have thrown CHA under the bus). If they weren’t trying to undermine the orderly planning process in Davis for their own ends, I would not be speaking up.
If I owned CV, I would work to keep the Cannery zoned exactly how it is. So don’t demonize CV partners for doing what is obviously good for their business interests.
I think Cannery needs to offer 2/1 fee simple to the City, on-site mitigation, like every other peripheral project.
Mike, why don’t you go down to public comment and tell the council that?
“Mr. Toad, have you ever played monopoly? There is money left on the table for ConAgra in your analysis and even more with monopoly pricing.”
I didn’t say there wasn’t. i simply did the math.
Silent Majority, I dont believe developers in general. I dont believe it when ConAgra tells me they cant afford it and I dont believe it when Covell Village says they have no interest in developing. I do believe we need more, not less, safe bike circulation for Cannery and City as a whole and we should get it whenever possible.
Silent majority: Wasn’t the problem of circulation brought up by others, including people who oppose the project? A solution has been offered by Covell Village owners that seems to be a benefit to the community as a whole – bike paths on the North side of Covell and an emergency access road to the back of the development. It makes sense that ConAgra people would be reluctant to pay for that infrastructure, but it might just improve the plan. If Covell Village land was included in the plan, then I think we would have a better, more integrated plan. Currently, it is like remodeling a house, but not being able to move or remove any walls.
Mike’s suggestion that they hand over 2/3 of the property to the City in order to get approval of their project is ludicrous. I can’t recall any project – peripheral or otherwise – that has been asked to do this. It sounds like extortion. But maybe that’s how Mike thinks City government should work.
Can the city or county use eminent domain to buy property for roads, etc? That certainly would limit any property owner’s ability to demand anything beyond a fair market value for the property that’s taken.
[quote]”has absolutely no interest in developing the land any longer… [/quote]
Maybe she should have added “in the foreseeable future.”
“Can the city or county use eminent domain to buy property for roads, etc?”
Of course they can but its doubtful they will. The county could do it but where is the impetus for the county. The City would look pretty bad taking somebody’s property on the periphery without annexing it into the city. That darned measure R and its uninteded consequences.
By the way Ryan, measure R is probably why Conagra didn’t want to plan both properties together. They probably figured a master planned project with the Covell part outside the City would never pass a measure R vote and would be a huge waste of time. They probably calculated they had a better chance of getting their project through on its own even though planning the two parcels together makes more sense from a purely planning perspective.
As for Covell Partners having no interest in developing their land any longer its a case of turning, as Joseph Heller said in Catch 22, ” impotence into abstinence.” They have no interest because they can’t.
“Maybe she should have added “in the foreseeable future.” “
don’t believe that’s accurate either.
[quote]By the way Ryan, measure R is probably why Conagra didn’t want to plan both properties together.[/quote]
Yes, but now that people are pushing for a referendum to put ConAgra on the ballot, it doesn’t make any difference. If that happens, we should look at a more innovative plan that might use some of Covell Village land.
doa ryan. no chance. the reason that conagra doesn’t want to deal with covell is they know it’s the kiss of death.
Sadly I agree. First we will see if there is an election. Second if there is Cannery has a better chance of getting through on its own. Never mind that progressive Davis would have a better project if both were planned together. Regressive Davis won’t allow it. What is best for the community is not as important as keeping others out.
And that’s what I’d like to see changed – the kiss of death thing. To me it is people living in the past. If using some of Covell land would result in a better plan for the community (bike paths and emergency access, moving the downtown fire station to cover more of the Northeast portion of town, locations for industry), then I would support looking at it.
Or do we have to wait until people die or move.
but does that mean we also end up with 1000 to 2000 units rather than just 600? and then we defeat the purpose of better planning because the cars end up clogging covell anyway?
Not really, DP. According to you and medwoman yesterday, everyone will be riding bikes and/or walking within a few years so traffic impacts on Covell will be negligble. Therefore, there’s little need for parking spaces or garages in The Cannery project and we can go ahead and increase the density to make efficient use of land.
-Michael Bisch
I just wanted to note that there is a planning process underway to develop bicycling infrastructure on the north side of Covell from Birch Lane to 14th Street. The process will position the city to apply for grants to “fill in” the missing link that exists in what is essentially an off-street (Class 1) bikeway all along Covell from Harper to the Sutter Hospital. There are LOTS of questions about how to deal with the Cannery property and going over the rail line bridge of course.
However, this plan does NOT, to my knowledge, include putting grade-separated crossings under Pole Line or Covell (near the shopping center). Those are unique to the “North Davis Land Trust” plan.
There may be some growing confusion coming out of Tom Sakash’s piece because there are now several “connectivity” options for Cannery with those of NDLT now mixed in. The DEIR has only 1 grade separated crossing coming out of Cannery on the southwest side. The “preferred” option (there were three) presented in the DEIR is to develop a path under the rail line bridge on Covell on the east side of the tracks to the H Street tunnel. The BAC and SPAC passed a motion endorsing this option and calling for the Development Agreement to include critical improvements to the H Street tunnel. The BAC and SPAC also passed a motion calling for a second grade-separated crossing on the east side of the project.
At this point Con Agra has abandoned the DEIR preferred option and gone with a second option which has a path coming under Covell on the southwest and making a hard left (easterly) turn to climb up the bridge embankment and connect to the current path on the south side of the Covell bridge. I personally oppose this option because it requires navigation of a steep path by younger and older riders and those with mobility challenges.
In addition, Con Agra is not offering to include a second grade separated crossing to the east and so they are offering a single grade-separated exit from the property that cannot be appropriately used by less experienced cyclists or those with increased mobility challenges. In my view, this will NOT provide the kind of connectivity we need to reduce car trips out of the Cannery project.
I concur with those writing here that Con Agra will not consider the NDLT proposal but I would support pushing for the infrastructure changes they propose with one HUGE exception: the NDLT proposal to put a bridge over the rail line to the west is untenable several engineers–including two that work for Con Agra–have told me that). NDLT’s unwillingness to consider the best/quickest connection with a path along the apartment complexes bothers me a great deal.
For those who are concerned that the NDLT plan is a Trojan Horse I will only say echo what has already been stated here: any further development of the Covell Village site will require a vote of the people of Davis. Still, I don’t expect the NDLT proposal to happen given where we are in the process.
Correction:
…the NDLT proposal to put a bridge over the rail line to the west is untenable (several engineers–including two that have worked for Con Agra–have told me that).
“Untenable….” Why do the engineers say this?
i’m sure i didn’t say that. in fact, i’m sure i said just the opposite – that we need to encourage people to use alternative modes of transportation.
JS–It has to do with several things: the probable height requirements of UP (owner of the rail line) means it would need to be a very high bridge (the Dave Pelz bridge is as high as it is because of UP not CalTrans) and even at a lower height the approach on either side would have to be pretty long to avoid steep climbs/descents. Also, 90 degree turns at the top are poor choices for a bridge. All together this makes for a very costly project and one that may be little used due to the steepness involved.
“agree with medwoman. what doesn’t work is throwing your hands up in the air and conceding bad practices. and planning for bad practices is not progressive.” DP yesterday
medwoman’s point that you were agreeing to is there was no need to plan for traffic impacts downtown because there’s going to be a massive mode share transition away from autos due to advocacy in favor of non “bad” practices. You appear to be taking one position regarding the downtown and the opposite position on a peripheral development.
-Michael Bisch
Problem is Ryan you are acting rationally.
I remember during the Covell Village vote this no on X guy, an econ professor named Mark, as I recall, told me we should vote it down and have them bring it back with a better plan. His idea was that a Measure J vote would act as a negotiation. It turns out he was wrong. The expense of putting another plan together and paying for an election creates too large a barrier. Plus the divisive nature of elections results in hardened positions where years later people still bring up questions about candidates positions on measure X. There have been only two measure J/R votes in 13 years, both failed and nobody wants to risk going through that process only to get smacked down by anti-growth forces that ask the question, what’s in it for me. We can see this with Cannery where everyone thinks it should include their vision; higher density, more apartments, a transportation hub, a $10,000,000 easement, better bike paths, it goes on and on bleeding any profit out of the project, and possibly, eventually killing it. Ironically people even call for more low cost housing on top of everything else. This on a project that doesn’t even require an election. All this gets added on in the hope that an election doesn’t happen or that if it does the proposal will pass.
Ryan, i don’t know what it will take before people realize how terrible Measure R is for proper development planning in Davis but don’t hold your breath.
[quote]Ryan, i don’t know what it will take before people realize how terrible Measure R is for proper development planning in Davis but don’t hold your breath. [/quote]
Measure J/R may be a meataxe when a deftly-handled scalpel would produce better results, but it’s one that frustrated voters decided they needed after decades of being handed developments they don’t want by City Councils that are more responsive to developers than to impacted residents. Absent an unfavorable court ruling, I agree that it won’t be going away anytime soon.
A meataxe? Its a guillotine.
I find it very interesting and perplexing when Davisites use word “sprawl” like a 1940’s European Jew might speak or write about concentration camps. The negative connotation of the word has been inflated to represent the Satan of all things development. The fear of sprawl keeps village people up at night, causes small children to shiver with fright, and congers up a pall of civic malaise and social depression that only a Hollywood writer might connect with.
But, we are a LONG, LONG, LONG way from there being even the slightest risk of true sprawl.
But is sprawl a bad thing? Apparently it depends on your ideological worldview…
[quote]To test sprawl’s effects on social and civic well-being, Williamson used Harvard’s Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, a compendium of information from more than 29,700 people in all parts of the US. The survey enabled him to systematically explore the relationship of population density, neighborhood age, automobile dependence, and urban residence to such important matters as local quality-of-life, social trust, political ideology, and political participation.
Happiness and social trust are greater in lower-density and non-urban places, he discovered. “Sprawl — in its fundamentals, if not in every excess — does seem, on average, to satisfy the widespread desire for secure, pleasant neighborhoods,” he says. People who live in central cities or in dense or older neighborhoods rate the quality of life in their neighborhoods lower than the residents of newer, more outlying, and less dense places rate their own surroundings.[/quote]
Then this…
[quote] “The history of suburbanization in the United States has been driven by exclusionary impulses,” he emphasizes. It “has had the effect of locking in and reinforcing racial and economic inequalities and of weakening (if not eliminating) the possibility of meaningful redress of social and economic inequalities within metropolitan regions.”
He describes suburbanization and sprawl as “a kind of inequality machine: Households of means move to the suburbs to escape problems associated with the central cities, then they construct barriers to exclude poor and working-class families from joining them; they escape fiscal responsibility for coping with urban social problems, and become more likely to support the political status quo and to resist efforts to alter the structure of opportunity in the United States in the direction of greater fairness and equality.”[/quote]
So, in general people are happier with space. But they are more segregated and prone to class stratification with space.
Which leads me to my long-standing theory that a lot of Davisites don’t care as much that people are happy as long as we are all more equal.
The thought that people of means owning more land than others tweaks their egalitarian senses. So, it is better to cram everyone together in small spaces so we are all more miserable together. And those big-space-wanting people can take their high income to benefit other communities.
Related to this, I find it very interesting that denser population areas are more politically blue. And it has been proven by study after study that conservatives are generally happier than liberals. (I wrote “generally”, because I personally know several people claiming to be politically liberal that are least as happy as I am.)
But my final question… does dense living create more unhappy people that become liberal, or do dense urban areas attract liberals that then become unhappy, or do the unhappy liberals already exist and then are attracted to these dense areas because misery loves company. Or does liberal just equal dense? (pun intended).
I really don’t know.
Sitting on the back deck of my friend’s new 4000 sq ft house on two acres outside of Bismarck overlooking the Missouri River, I kept thinking how happy I would being there not having to see or hear another neighbor except when I invited them over to socialize. The other interesting thing about that house was that it cost my friends less to acquire than the value of my 1800 sq ft Davis house on a postage-stamp lot surrounded by two-story homes with windows peering down in my yard. BTW, their house includes a system that pumps water 400ft underground to heat all their floors in the winter… at about zero cost.
Now because my business is in California, so I cannot yet move to Bismarck or another nice city where I can buy two acres with a view for a reasonable price. At least not yet.
My final point is that we should not just accept this view that denser is better, because it is not. It will make us unhappier dealing with more people in our face, in our space, in our way. Land is a natural resource, and all natural resources have value and cost money, and those of us making more can buy more.
It is typically the poorer younger people that can’t afford more land and benefit from the close proximity of peers to socialize with so that they meet their spouse and start a family and start making more money so they can buy some land to make them happier. So, it is a temporary state of youth to be dense. For those that get stuck in a low economic state where they cannot afford land, here is the solution for you egalitarians out there:
1. Accept that some people don’t have the drive to go out and earn more money, and demand that they stop with the envy and demonization of those that do. Demand that they accept their lot in life (pun intended).
2. Demand that the rest go out and compete for greater prosperity so they can buy up.
3. Support more development so the cost of real estate drops so that it is more affordable for everyone to buy up.
You almost have it right Frankly but what you are missing is that all of Davis is that ex-urban race and class exclusionary zone so that the opposition to growth is to keep those [u]others[/u] out. Not universally, i might add, but there are those elements in the no growth scene. I remember Spencer Overton an African American, Harvard educated, UCD Law Professor speaking about a move to change the affordable housing element of Wildhorse where he lived. He said “This is like saying you don’t want me here.” Sadly he left town and now works on voting rights at the Justice Department.
“Measure J/R may be a meataxe when a deftly-handled scalpel would produce better results, but it’s one that frustrated voters decided they needed after decades of being handed developments they don’t want by City Councils that are more responsive to developers than to impacted residents.”
“There have been only two measure J/R votes in 13 years, both failed….”
Just the threat that J/R imposes on our community planning process is enough to pit citizens and developers against each other when it would be better to be working together.
That we don’t trust our elected officials to work in our interest is a sad commentary. I get the impression that “slow growth” really means “no growth” for our most outspoken when it comes to housing developments. I’m all for getting developers to build the best developments we can come up with, but the constant add-ons seem designed to obstruct than to improve.
[quote]It is typically the poorer younger people that can’t afford more land and benefit from the close proximity of peers to socialize with so that they meet their spouse and start a family and start making more money so they can buy some land to make them happier. So, it is a temporary state of youth to be dense.[/quote]
Thank you for making my point for me. We need more dense spaces for temporary habitation for poorer younger people, of which Davis has thousands.
how dense do you want it? Where would you put it. The owners of Cannery have other plans for their property.
[quote] I cannot yet move to Bismarck or another nice city where I can buy two acres with a view for a reasonable price. [/quote]
There’s a good reason housing is cheap in Bismarck: the climate. Some folks like “real winters,” and more power to them if they want to live in North Dakota. But while California suffers many ills, unless we totally trash the environment it will remain a desirable place to live, and CA housing will retain its price premium over places like Bismarck.
[quote]My final point is that we should not just accept this view that denser is better, because it is not.[/quote]
One man’s dense is another man’s sparse. My wife, son and I live in a 1,700 s.f. house. The size is just right for us, even though one of the four bedrooms is a dedicated home office. My brother lives in midtown Manhattan and would consider this place huge, but wouldn’t trade his modest apartment for it in a million years. And I’m sure there are plenty of folks in Wildhorse, Lake Alhambra or College Park who’d laugh at the notion of cramming themselves into 1,700 s.f. So while we need to provide homes of different sizes, we’d be smart to focus on the greatest internal need rather than the most profitable want, and that means hewing to the denser side of the spectrum.
By the way Jim that is what Cannery does. it provides many different types of housing to fit many types of needs. Look closely at the map and the plan and see for yourself.
Robb: maybe you can clarify this, since I can’t really visualize it very well. Is the bike overcrossing that ConAgra wants to build comparable in slope/degree to the one that goes to South Davis on Poleline?
[quote]how dense do you want it? Where would you put it. The owners of Cannery have other plans for their property.[/quote]
As I’ve said many times, I believe we need the density of apartment complexes, I believe it should go on (among other places) the cannery property. And the owners of the Cannery site need rezoning, so what they want and what they get are two different things. The ultimate disposition of their site, other than for an industrial/commercial development, is entirely up to the city council and possibly the voters.
So your saying that because you won’t get exactly what you want you are going to try to block a private land owner from doing what they want with their own private property.
Sure, Mr. Toad, that’s what I’m saying. Ribbit.
@yeahmyam – “Silent Majority … I do believe we need more, not less, safe bike circulation for Cannery and City as a whole and we should get it whenever possible.”
We’re in 100% agreement on this general point. My objection to what I’m hearing is that some people are pushing for two grade separated crossings 2000 feet apart to serve 547 homes. One at the SW corner and one at L Street. This is crazy. We have major bike infrastructure issues all over town and it is irresponsible to overbuild at one location. The SW corner makes the most sense to me based on the existing built environment.
At $2,000,000 a pop, I don’t view bike undercrossings as something you get whenever you can. This is serious infrastructure investment, and the money for a second crossing is better spent on other priorities.
DT
[quote]medwoman’s point that you were agreeing to is there was no need to plan for traffic impacts downtown because there’s going to be a massive mode share transition away from autos due to advocacy in favor of non “bad” practices[/quote]
No DT, that is not my point. I do not believe that there is likely to be any massive or sudden change. What I do believe is that if people are unwilling to look at the adverse consequences of some of our current choices, we are less likely to make progress towards more environmentally and healthier choices. What I think does work is not dictation, but nudges in a healthier direction. For instances, high taxes on cigarettes is a nudge to make it more difficult to persist with a highly destructive habit, not a ban on that habit. I would like to see us move away from our extreme reliance on our individual cars towards a definitely healthier chose to walk or bike.
Do any of you seriously doubt that walking or biking is better for our individual health and our environment than is taking our care ? So my point is, if we were to make limited efforts to make walking and or biking more attractive than driving, more people might be inclined to do so. I am not shooting for this tomorrow, but do not feel that 10-15 years would be an unreasonable time frame to achieve major shifts in how we choose to move around Davis.
So Medwoman, are you like Don going to oppose Cannery if you don’t get everything you want?
Same question to yeahmyam, Davis Progressive, Robb, Ryan?
@Ryan: – “Silent majority: Wasn’t the problem of circulation brought up by others, including people who oppose the project? A solution has been offered by Covell Village owners that seems to be a benefit to the community as a whole …”
Covell Village also opposes the project. They have for years. Their offer of easements in exchange for $10,000,000 of infrastructure on their property is disingenuous at best. To echo Robb [quote]NDLT’s unwillingness to consider the best/quickest connection with a path along the apartment complexes bothers me a great deal. Robb Davis[/quote]If the real goal of Covell Village was community enhancement, then a narrow easement on their property line shouldn’t be an issue.
SM it appears that most everyone in Davis is putting their own narrow interests first. Sad but true.
i guess I should say most everyone in Davis and Dixon are putting their own narrow interests first. Sad but true.
If I were acting in self-interest, I would support single-family homes on large lots.
But you have said you want rental housing for your children and your employees. is that not self interest?
@Don Shor — I am sorry I cannot say for sure. All I know is that the engineers I have talked to felt it would not be practical.
” What I think does work is not dictation, but nudges in a healthier direction.”
medwoman, what you are advocating for is tantamount to a ban on redevelopment of the downtown. What part of “No developer or lender, and the tenants necessary to support the projects, will invest in developments in our downtown in the absence of parking to support the project” are you not understanding?
I have made this point over and over, yet you refuse to engage.
-Michael Bisch
Of course you could pay them more so they could afford Davis. Had to say that so you could feel what its like to have someone poke their busy body nose into your business.
[quote] it appears that most everyone in Davis is putting their own narrow interests first.[/quote]
Like density, “narrow interest” is a subjective concept. For some (a very small subset, IMO) it might be limited to home equity, for others it might include things like community diversity and innovative solutions to stubborn problems. For most people it’s a combination of things that can be very hard to articulate and quantify. In all cases, I see no shame in advancing one’s interests. You can be sure that the project developer is doing so.
Frankly, I call bullshit. Then again, I’m most definitely dense. 🙂
There are millions of examples of very wealth individuals and families choosing to live in very dense surroundings. What’s your motive in brainwashing us to believe otherwise? Perhaps enlightenment?
-Michael Bisch
Here was my comment in June ’11 when the council moved the process forward by a 3 – 2 vote. Nothing has particularly changed about my analysis from that time.
06/23/11 – 05:15 PM
…
The BPLS Report gives the ConAgra site all A’s as a business site. As noted, it concluded “the site is viable as a business park provided a broad range of uses is allowed,” but does not identify what those uses include (at least not that I could find). I don’t think that a high-tech campus is the only option; office/light industrial and even some forms of commercial business could locate there. The council dictates the zoning.
However, as I understand it the council 3-2 vote authorizes the applicant to go forward and the staff to process the application. The broad outlines of the project are well-known and the applicant will not change the zoning request and housing allocations unless it is clear Dan Wolk is going to insist on it. They have no incentive now to back off from their proposed housing development.
Dan and Rochelle have mentioned the need for housing — Dan has commented on the lack of housing for younger families, and Rochelle previously described the benefit to the school district. If your goal is to maximize housing availability for young adults, here are a couple of points to consider.
— The segment of the Davis housing market most affected by the current lack of affordable housing is young adults, not just families, who are paying a premium to rent in this tight market. Young families are buying in Woodland, Dixon, and West Sacramento, and it will be several years at least before the overstock of housing in those markets clears out. Davis needs more rental housing, first and foremost.
– Young families can presently bring their children into the Davis school district via interdistrict transfer. They have little incentive to buy here.
— You can’t tell the builder what style of housing to build or who to sell it to. The only leverage you have over the outcome is in the density you mandate. If you want housing units for young people and young families, mandate ONLY the highest-densities (apartments, duplexes, quads). Do not allow any housing units in larger sizes. Unless you are aware of a large number of young couples making in excess of $100K a year, you aren’t going to achieve your stated goals at the current proposed densities. Davis will end up with another subdivision with houses at above-market prices, the bare minimum number of affordable units, and no improvement in the rental vacancy rate.
— If you mandate higher density, you can squeeze in the same number of housing units into a smaller area. That would allow you to increase the percentage of space (50%?) in business uses. You need to clarify which business uses are acceptable.
Zoning decisions for the ConAgra site should be made by the council, based on what is best for the city in the long run, not on what the landowner necessarily prefers. They own the site outright, and will make a good profit regardless of how they develop it. Or, more accurately, how they sell off the land to developers once it is rezoned. It is possible that putting these restrictions on the site will cause the builder to back off and abandon the project in its current form. No harm, no foul. They can wait. There is no hurry about rezoning or developing this site.
[quote]But you have said you want rental housing for your children and your employees. is that not self interest?[/quote]
For everyone’s children and employees.
Michael did you ever look at the Joel Kotkin article I posted? you should give it a read.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/003873-how-can-we-be-so-dense-anti-sprawl-policies-threaten-americas-future
Here is another relevant piece.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/003882-california-homes-require-real-reach
“So your saying that because you won’t get exactly what you want you are going to try to block a private land owner from doing what they want with their own private property.”
Toad, this is a very bizarre comment. That’s the whole point of zoning. Every landowner is free to do what they want within the confines of the zoning and various other restrictions. If a landowner wishes to do “what they want” in a way that contrevenes the zoning, they of course require the approval of the community. Hello! Whoever bought the option from ConAgra new that going in. Don’t try and buffalo us.
-Michael Bisch
Tony here. I’m new to The Vanguard comments ( but have been a reader for quite some time). What happened to the dialogue about getting rid of the railroad tracks? That would solve the circulation problem. Would it be too much to ask Cannery to pursue this?
“Zoning decisions for the ConAgra site should be made by the council, based on what is best for the city in the long run, not on what the landowner necessarily prefers.”
So i guess you are against a referendum.
to answer your question frog, i’m inclined to vote no on new housing unless its something special. this isn’t special.
Tony, in the short term yes it would. Those track are working. There is talk of re-routing them through West Sac but it is a $200,000,000 dollar project and will take many years to get done.
[quote]So i guess you are against a referendum.[/quote]
No, a project of this size should go to the voters. And it will one way or another, so the council might as well put it on the ballot if they approve the rezoning. But I would urge them to reject the rezoning if the current project is the only option.
I see you’re fond of the Cato Institute and oppose zoning. I was unaware that you were a libertarian.
Michael i know that. That is not my point. My point is that you have all these people making demands on Conagra. My question is trying to find what people will accept. All these people are not going to get whatever they want. Its just not possible. Don Shor is not going to get all apartments. Med woman isn’t getting a transportation hub although one already exists. The bike people are unlikely to get two bike tunnels. I’m trying to figure out just how entrenched people are in these positions and to show the unreasonableness of those that have an all or none mentality.
Sometimes the libertarians can be correct. As for going to the voters i will be surprised if the council puts this on the ballot. My guess is you are going to need to collect the signatures.
“Nothing has particularly changed about my analysis from that time.”
Except now you are saying it should be put on the ballot. Why didn’t you say it back on 6-23-11?
[quote] to show the unreasonableness of those that have an all or none mentality.[/quote]
It is very clear that you support the project — actually, every development proposal that has ever been discussed here — with zero reservations whatsoever. You are a booster of this project to the point that you sound like a paid spokesman for it. So your mentality appears to be ‘all’.
They could increase the density, expand the business component to 50% — all suggestions made in 2010, 2011, and again now. They have barely modified the proposal from what Lewis put forward, and appear to be unwilling to yield on anything at all. So they are also in the ‘all or nothing’ mode.
The public has never shown any fondness for this project. In a Dec. 2010 commentary, David Greenwald noted that “even the planning department led by the Director Ken Hiatt is alarmed by public response to the first meeting and proposal.”
Asked to explain, Elaine Roberts Musser commented that “I was at the meeting, and I am just guessing here, but I suspect city staff did not expect the majority of the audience to be so negative in its response; or so hesitant to approve this project “as is”. And most of the comments were negative, until towards the end of the meeting when a few proponents finally spoke up…”
Unfortunately, the ‘all or nothing’ situation is what the property owner has presented to the council and the public.
[quote]Except now you are saying it should be put on the ballot. Why didn’t you say it back on 6-23-11?[/quote]
My god, you ask strange questions. How’s this for an answer? I have no idea why I didn’t say that back in June 2011. Ribbit.
“Here was my comment in June ’11 when the council moved the process forward by a 3 – 2 vote. Nothing has particularly changed about my analysis from that time.”
“06/23/11 – 05:15 PM”
You didn’t ask for a vote then so why ask for one now?
“Unfortunately, the ‘all or nothing’ situation is what the property owner has presented to the council and the public.”
I’m not so sure nothing has changed from the original proposal. Did the houses have solar panels originally?
https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5082:sunday-commentary-the-last-large-parcel-standing&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86
I’ve put a link to a Vanguard article dated 2-12-12 that has a drawing of a previous plan for Cannery. If you look at the drawing at the top of this page you can see that much has changed. Those that say there are no changes simply aren’t looking.
Don, I’m with you on the density thing. You lost me, though, on increasing the commercial component to 50%. The reason why I think the 20% might work is roughly half of it would be mixed use. With the multi-family on top of the retail, you have a fighting chance of absorbing the built space fairly quickly. The remaining 10 acres of light industrial is problematic. Sure there’s some theoretical demand from some small users, but that demand dwindles quickly when the users discover how incredibly expensive it is to develop ones own facility. Expression Systems is an outlier, not the rule.
The absorption of the Interland development took 30 years! How long would it take to absorb the 50% commercial component you now advocate for?
Now if you marketed the entire property as a corporate campus, there might be some demand, there might not be. It would be a gamble. What makes the odds far, far worse is the political uncertainty. You market the property for 3, 4, maybe 5 years, finally find a corporation that wants to develop the property as a campus ala Intel, only to have the community go ape shit because once upon a time one of the company founders made some thoughtless, politically incorrect comment.
No, the 50% thing is fraught with uncertainty.
As for why brokers and developers are far more comfortable with the absorption rate for a “research park” sited along I80? No clue.
-Michael Bisch
I say “no clue” because the harsh reality is whatever “innovation” park space is developed in Davis will be significantly more expensive than elsewhere in the region. Sure, a number of companies will be willing to pay a premium to be in Davis, but how much of a premium? $10 per sq. ft.? $20? $50? It’s hard to say and that’s where the risk is.
PS: Keep in mind, all Davis “innovation” park developments to date have failed. The absorption rate was so slow that significant portions had to be leased to off-campus UCD units, non-profits, gyms, etc.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]You lost me, though, on increasing the commercial component to 50%.[/quote]
One thing that has changed since 2011 is that the rental housing shortage has gotten even worse. So an 80/20 plan would be even better now.
80/20?
-Michael Bisch
Michael: 20% business per your comment above.
Toad: [quote] Those that say there are no changes simply aren’t looking.[/quote]
You’re right:
2011: 610 units
2013: 551 units.
Back to the traffic impact issue, I fail to understand why we’re concerned by traffic impacts. Two years ago the leaders of Cool Davis were insisting that there was no need to build parking structures because we were about to enter a new paradigm without cars. I singled out medwoman and DP earlier today, but truthfully, many have argued here that if you frustrate drivers with insufficient auto infrastructure, they would give up their cars instead of moving to neighborhoods that still provided for cars. Clearly, the progressive land use policy that needs to be implemented here is to design The Cannery project without any auto infrastructure. Bike, ped, and public transit infrastructure only. As we all know, consumers will do whatever planners want them to do.
-Michael Bisch
Don, got it. 20% commercial, 80% residential, but significantly greater density on the 80%. I’m back on board. That said, I’d like to see far higher density on the 20% commercial. Instead of a max FAR, there should be a min FAR.
-Michael Bisch
At the risk of goring the ox, the holy cow, whatever the proper expresssion, somebody please explain the community farm requirement. We’re short of commercial land. We’re short of residential land. Are we also short of ag land? If we are short of ag land, it seems to me we are having financial difficulty maintaining all our greenbelts and parks. Why aren’t we converting some of it to community farms?
-Michael Bisch
Whoops! Community farm “component”, not “requirement”.
-Michael Bisch
Its development whackamole. Someone probably insisted there be garden space now somebody else complains about garden space. This is the problem with ballot box planning you can’t please everyone and as long as 50.1% want nothing or are unwilling to accept anything except their own vision nothing will ever get done.
[i] There are millions of examples of very wealth individuals and families choosing to live in very dense surroundings. What’s your motive in brainwashing us to believe otherwise? Perhaps enlightenment?[/i]
Every time I visit New York, I get the sense that most people living there are burning through their reservoir of life energy much faster than the rest of us. The wealthy buy large enough properties to allow them to escape the constant sensory assault of that super-dense city. However, New Yorkers don’t seem very happy to me. They are hurried, stressed, cramped, contained… and they are some of the grumpiest damn people on the planet. Except when they are in Central Park. In fact the wealthiest live next to Central Park where they have a view of the park. And a lot of them have second homes in upstate New York or farther north where they relax and recharge.
Boston is interesting. I love Boston. It is compact, but it does not feel as dense as other cities. The Big Dig put a green parkway right down the middle and the open green space has increased the liability of that city substantially. But most people live outside of Boston in regular single-family homes with a yard.
I think living dense puts humans in an unnatural state. It it not a surprise to me that science has proved that higher population density results in unhappier people.
My head went numb after wading through the first two pages, so forgive me if I am bringing up something already mentioned. Adding bicycle circulation to the west along the same type of design as the UNDER-crossing in back of the Little League fields would seem to be a lot cheaper than and OVER-crossing and would involve a more gentle grade. There is also the undercrossing below Covell just east of Wildhorse. What do the “engineers” say about that?
BTW, people in New York love to complain. I go there often to visit my son and the only reason most people think about leaving is the weather. If you are creative it’s a great place to be. New Yorkers LOVE to complain and I’m sure they love to complain when they are asked to.