George Phillips Addresses Three Critical Issues: Sustainability, Connectivity, and the Election Possibility – The Cannery Project has become one of the big issues that is facing this community, as the fall of 2013 rapidly approaches. George Phillips, a long-time land use attorney and consultant for ConAgra, sat down with the Vanguard last week to talk about the key features of the project and to attempt to address some of its controversies.
This is the second of a two-part series. In the first portion of the interview, we basically asked George Phillips to make their best case for the project. In the second portion of the interview, we asked him specific questions to respond to some of the controversies.
Sustainability
In our first question, we asked Mr. Phillips to compare the sustainability features of Cannery to those of West Village in UC Davis.
He responded, “The structure of West Village is different, so it’s apples to oranges.”
West Village represents a partnership between the Carmel Partners and the University of California. In West Village you have the collaboration between public dollars and private corporate money that have participated in the project. That produces a different dynamic from a cost perspective, Mr. Phillips told the Vanguard.
That allows for subsidized infrastructure, public dollars that have gone toward the project, which does not exist in the Cannery project.
“Obviously they have done a great job with a goal of being net-zero,” he said. “Obviously they have set a very aggressive goal. I think there are a lot of people that are still wondering when it’s all measured have they really accomplished net zero. But clearly that’s been the goal.”
“It’s very aggressive,” he said and “obviously it’s to be lauded. It’s a great project.”
Translating that to Cannery is difficult. Instead, they have tried to do something that “has not been done in the city before” and “compares very well to any other project in the state even those that claim they’re net zero. “
They have done so with a project that is privately funded and is using private real estate.
What they have done is add a solar component to all of the detached units. They have a 1.5 kw system for all of those units. “New Home has developed options beyond that, so that homeowners can choose to go all the way to net zero.”
All exterior lights in the project will be LED. There will be a solar component to all of the non-residential power.
Mr. Phillips argues, “While it is not under the banner of net zero, as West Village is, we think it’s very aggressive as it relates to a privately-funded project with a sustainability component.”
He added, “One thing that gets left out of this discussion – because we’ve had a lot of folks say to us well you’re not net zero or its not solar on every single home – we’re starting from a different place with the efficiency of the homes themselves.”
They made a commitment early on to be 40 percent more efficient than Title 24. The city’s standard is 15 percent better than Title 24.
“We’re starting from a standpoint where these homes are incredibly efficient,” he said, noting that this gets to things like windows, insulation, framing of the homes themselves, and the walls. “We found out that (other) homes have a solar component but they’re not as efficient to begin with.”
“I think it’s a package and we think we’re doing well on the sustainability,” he concluded.
Connectivity
We asked George Phillips if he would respond to some of the concerns raised by those in the bicycling community, in particular those of Mayor Joe Krovoza and Robb Davis.
As Mr. Phillips explained, the objective of some of the critics is “to really maximize the connectivity” and to make the bike and pedestrian facilities the best that they can be. The critics would like the connection to be better and some prefer the connection to be down at the H Street Tunnel rather than one that would just connect back into the existing trail on the south side of East Covell.
“We’re okay with that. There are challenges that we have laid out, but that’s a council decision and they’ll decide,” Mr. Phillips said. “I think that that issue gets worked out as it relates to that particular connection.”
There have also been talks about improvements that could be done to the H Street Tunnel itself. In addition, there have been discussions about the need for a second grade-separated crossing to the east of the project.
“The differences are how we perhaps look at accomplishing all of those things,” Mr. Phillips said – not to mention when. “Clearly we’re going to pay for the construction of our grade-separated connection… That will be the project’s obligation.”
He added that they see themselves participating in the Covell Corridor study, which is looking at filling in the gap that exists in the north side of East Covell from Pole Line to Cannery’s eastern boundary. It will look at a grade-separated crossing in that area.
It will also look at critical intersections and at making them safer for bicyclists to cross.
“We’re anticipating, we’ve assumed, that out of that study, there’s going to be a capital improvement program that identifies certain pieces of infrastructure,” he said adding that “in our development agreement discussions with the city, our participation in that funding mechanism is going to be identified and quantified so that we’ll be participating in the funding of those improvements.”
“We look at it as a larger city project that comes out of that Corridor Plan and gets implemented,” he said. Mr. Phillips said that critics would probably be okay with that plan overall, but the question lingers as to the timing of the study and the certainty of it. “Those are the things that there’s probably going to be more discussion about – what are the insurances and when.”
There are challenges from a space standpoint, in terms of where it would occur and where it would land on the south side of the street.
He said that they are trying to be responsive to these concerns, but added, “It’s a big burden for any single project at least a project of our size to be able to do all of those things.”
We discussed the feasibility of going to the east through Covell.
“We’ve looked at what those facilities would cost, and it’s about $8 or $9 million,” Mr. Phillips stated.
That was the quote in the Enterprise and one that people questioned. However, Mr. Phillips was able to explain that the $8 to $9 million is the cost of three grade-separated crossings – one on the west over the railroad tracks, one over Pole Line and then one under or over East Covell.
So the $8 to $9 million figure refers not just to going to the east, but rather the cost for funding the entire map with the three crossings.
“The grade-separated crossing of East Covell itself,” he said, having talked to the guy running the Corridor study, “is $3 million by itself. So you can see where you get to $9 million in a hurry.”
He explained that the design was a road all the way across, frontage all the way down, and frontage all the way across.
The Election
Finally, we asked him to respond to the possibility that this issue would be put on the ballot as a sort of quasi-Measure J referendum.
Clearly, this was a point of some frustration for Mr. Phillips, who believes that they have spent three years negotiating with the city and working with the community in good faith.
“We’ve been at this three years, talked to a lot of people in the community, tried to be responsive to a lot of people in the community and what they like to see on the site, worked with city staff, have a great home builder, have a great plan for a great neighborhood,” he said.
He added, “We went into this knowing that we were in the city and we didn’t trigger a Measure R vote.”
“Obviously we don’t think we trigger the vote, we don’t see a need for a vote and we would rather not have a vote,” he said. “We would rather be in a position where the city council weighs the job we’ve done and makes a decision on whether or not we’ve done it adequately and whether we’ve done a good enough job.”
“We hope they will,” he said. “It’s been a long and difficult process and we have to be satisfied no matter which way it goes. We would hope that the citizens of Davis would be too.”
“From a policy perspective you get concerned about votes on everything,” he said. “At some point it has the potential to cause real paralysis for the city. Certainly, for all of the work we’ve put into it, we hope we can avoid that.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Put it on the.ballot. Con Agra knew.going into this that the.voters demand having a direct voice on big issues.like this one.
Don’t put it on the ballot. Con Agra knew going in that it was not subject to measures J or R.
Put it on the ballot, the people should decide.
Can someone opposed to this development, or that is demanding we put it on the ballot, please articulate the downsides? Just doing a list of pros and cons, I have a long list of pros, but only “increased traffic” as a con. Am I missing something? Is that the only fear people have of this project… that it will increase traffic?
We need land for businesses and that’s what the Cannery is zoned for. Make it a business park.
We all know the rules. If you want to put it on the ballot there is a process. This project is in its third year of development. If the City Council wanted to make an election a prerequisite they should have said that a long time ago. The no-growth nimby’s have every right to petition for an election but calling on the Council to spare you the heavy lifting and empower the forces of obstruction to kill the project is not how the rules should be applied this late in the game.
If people have issues with the project, then they should write down their concerns and submit it to the Council (like other people have done). Or they can attend a meeting and voice their concerns. People already have an opportunity to participate. If people want to force a vote, then there is a process for that, but I don’t think the City Council should spend the money appeasing the direct democracy fanatics in town, when the developers have followed the process well.
I’m OK with letting the voters decide this big issue. It was not on the ballot when these CC members ran for election. None of them said they were hell-bent on adopting this project or refusing to put it to the voters.
[i]We need land for businesses and that’s what the Cannery is zoned for. Make it a business park.[/i]
So, GI, is this your opposition to the project… just that you want it 100% a business park? What are your concerns about the added housing?
Zoning the land as light industrial was an error. It’s now surrounded by housing, full of people who will fight such a large project in their neighborhood.
Sue Greenwald liked to dream of a big “neighborhood friendly,” “light industrial” development there. It would be “neighborhood friendly” only for neighborhoods on the other side of town.
Any business park concept would suffer many of the alleged fatal flaws that supposedly accompany the current proposal, plus have the business shortcomings that already have been enumerated. And, it would mobilize nearby residents who haven’t seen such a development a reality because nobody has the money to make it happen. NIMBY!
Interesting how some people insist on following The Process only when the process decision appears headed the way they want it too.
The city council should follow established process and live with the politics that flow from their decision. We elected them to decide, let them!
We also have a process for unhappy citizens to take decisions they don’t like to an election, let them! (P.S.–The process is not “threaten a referendum to make the council afraid to decide.”
This silly argument about an election by those who will never be satisfied and will oppose this project no matter what misses the most interesting news in the article. It looks like Con Agra has agreed to 8-9 million dollars of bicycle infrastructure improvements. This is a major concession to bicycle advocates who should all now recognize the efforts of the developers to work with the community to make this a worthy project.
In my opinion the land is appropriately zoned for business. If it’s going to be rezoned for housing, it should be for the type most needed by the community, which is much higher density. I consider this proposal a missed opportunity to meet some of the higher priority needs.
Given current pressures for sites for economic development, and the obvious need for different types of housing, if this project is approved it increases the likelihood of annexation and development elsewhere. That should be a community decision.
It has been said before that the community needs to have a ‘discussion’ about the need for various types of development, and the options that would fulfill those needs. One way to have that discussion is by having an election.
I agree Don, except that “type most needed” is subjective. That seems to be the basis of the conflict.
There is another way to have this discussion – one that doesn’t have spreading misinformation and fear as a tactic. An update of the General Plan would be one avenue.
Mr Toad wrote: [quote]It looks like Con Agra has agreed to 8-9 million dollars of bicycle infrastructure improvements. This is a major concession to bicycle advocates who should all now recognize the efforts of the developers to work with the community to make this a worthy project.[/quote]
I have seen no indication that Con Agra made such a commitment and this article does not indicate that to be the case. Read this carefully–Mr Phillips is saying that Con Agra will participate in or contribute to City projects along the Covell corridor and he acknowledges that the problem with that is that there is no assurance that the city will be able to find the additional resources to fund the rest of these projects.
In addition, David wrote: [quote]However, Mr. Phillips was able to explain that the $8 to $9 million is the cost of three grade-separated crossings – one on the west over the railroad tracks, one over Pole Line and then one under or over East Covell.[/quote]
This despite the fact that Mr Phillips’ own engineers have said a path over the railroad tracks to the west was not really an option given the heights involved and the length of approaches necessary to achieve it. It is simply not going to happen. I am uncertain why he keeps mentioning it. The best option is a path paralleling the railroad tracks connecting to the (improved) H Street tunnel. I and others have already hashed out the challenges of achieving that option because of the intransigence of the NDLT folks.
Just an aside: it is extremely frustrating to me to see people who claim to have the best interests of the City at heart (NDLT and Con Agra via Mr Phillips) unwilling to work to provide the City with the most appropriate (if not ideal) connectivity out of this project.
Robb: Lumping NDLC and ConAgra into the same characterization is unfair. Cannery has done a fine job of internal circulation. The proposed grade separated crossing at the SW corner and the proposed improvements at the J Street intersection provide the best possible external connectivity given the physical constraints of the property and the NDLC attempt to box them in and kill the project.
The fact that Cannery objects to being used as a big ATM for the adjacent property owner and/or bike special interests looking for infrastructure improvements to serve a vacant ag parcel is completely understandable.
SM-I do not want to be uncharitable so let me reiterate my frustration with Con Agra (I have done the same concerning NDLT)
1. Two years ago I met with representatives of Con Agra including an engineer (who came to our meeting highly prepared) to discuss grade separated crossings out of the project area. At that meeting the engineer made it clear to me that going over the rail line was not a realistic option as far as he was concerned and we agreed that while less than ideal, a path along the rail line to H Street was probably the best option. This option showed up in the DEIR as the preferred option but, strangely to me, the option to go over the rail line was also in the plan. At the BAC/SPAC meeting in April I challenged another engineer about whether he believed going over the rail line was really an option and he said no. Why this keeps being brought up is beyond me but it only muddies the waters and sows confusion.
2. I have described in detail to Mr Phillips why the currently proposed option (connecting to the current bike path on the south side of Covell) is unsatisfactory because it forces riders to navigate a steep slope on Covell from F Street. That route may be fine for experienced and mature cyclists but is a very poor option for children and older people on bikes (unless they have electric assist bikes). Mr Phillips chooses not to acknowledge this problem and characterizes the whole thing as a “difference of opinion”.
Am I doing this because I am merely a voice for “bike special interests”? I certainly do not see myself that way but if that is the moniker I have been given I will have to live with it. I think we can do better than what is on offer. I believe we must do better to achieve City goals related to travel mode share and carbon emissions. I want children in every neighborhood to benefit from excellent connectivity options. Am I asking Con Agra to be an ATM (implying a bottomless source of cash for pet projects)? I have no idea how much they or the homebuilders stand to make from this project and so, in relative terms, I do not know if “$9 million” is too much to ask. I am not against them making a profit as long as City needs are met.
(BTW, I agree the internal circulation is fine.)
“Zoning the land as light industrial was an error. “
Just Saying: It was zoned light industrial from the time it was a tomato factory. So I’m not sure how that was a mistake.
[quote]I agree Don, except that “type most needed” is subjective. That seems to be the basis of the conflict.[/quote]
I have tried to provide a statistical basis for the need for higher density rental housing. I don’t know if there is an actual need for senior housing; if there is, I don’t know of what type. I have no way to assess the claims by various groups that we need senior housing here. I don’t know what basis there is for assessing the community’s need for the type of housing that ConAgra wishes to build there. So only part of the housing discussion has been quantified to my satisfaction.
As to the need for commercial property, that has been made rather strongly by Rob White and others. Most of the argument seems to be as to
(1) whether the cannery site is suitable; we keep hearing that it isn’t, but only from anonymous sources who won’t provide evidence, and
(2) whether ConAgra could be induced to develop that site for commercial uses, or to sell the property to someone who would.
If this site doesn’t get developed to meet those needs, the community needs to discuss:
–where are the students going to live?
–where are seniors going to live, if there is a need for that?
–how can we truly create affordable housing in a cost-effective manner?
–where will commercial development occur?
So if you live south of the Northwest Quadrant, or adjacent to the Mace Curve, the disposition of the cannery site affects you. If you are renting in the current Davis market, it affects you. If you are trying to move up from rental housing to buy a house, it affects you. And in myriad ways, it affects all of us.
Maybe I didn’t read it closely enough but it seems that contrary to other reports they seem committed to working this out with the city to find a reasonable outcome. My guess is with this as a priority for the mayor it will get worked out in the end winning his vote for approval of the project.
Robb: Are you saying the proposed infrastructure is not ADA compliant? Is it non-compliant with other state or federal standards for bike paths?
SM – I am NOT saying that and apologize if that is what I am communicating. I am speaking as someone who works with school kids on bicycling skills and understands their capabilities (I also am a grandfather of a four year old who is now an active rider). The Con Agra preferred route requires children to ride a portion that I (and others) consider to be too steep to be navigable.
If you ride, please take a ride out to F Street and hop on the bike path on the east side by the Little League fields and then ride up and over Covell. After you do so, please give me your honest opinion about children using that route on a daily basis to go to schools, the park or the library west of F. Feel free to email me at robbbike@me.com and give me your impressions.
[I]So if you live south of the Northwest Quadrant, or adjacent to the Mace Curve, the disposition of the cannery site affects you. If you are renting in the current Davis market, it affects you. If you are trying to move up from rental housing to buy a house, it affects you. And in myriad ways, it affects all of us.[/I]
“Effects” is way too nebulous a term. There are positive effects and negative effects. I can count up all the positive effects, but I don’t understand what is perceived as negative.
There is conflict about the utility of the project. That can only be resolved by compromise because many of the desires of various people and groups are in conflict. For example, Don, you appear to not care about UCD employee housing… only student housing. Mr. Toad appears to care about both. A vote does not help resolve these differences of opinion.
Those pushing for a vote appear to only want to block the development.
Why?
Please, somebody explain what is causing you to reject this development. What impacts, effects, problems to yourself or the city do you believe exist? I don’t get it.
Come on now… if you are against this development, then you should be clear and honest about why.
[quote] For example, Don, you appear to not care about UCD employee housing… only student housing. Mr. Toad appears to care about both.[/quote]
On the contrary. I care about housing for non-student renters, including UCD employees, who are presently crowded out of the Davis rental market by insufficient supply. Note that the non-student component of West Village is reserved for UCD faculty and staff only. So they are, at least slightly, addressing that problem.
The massive undersupply of student rental housing overwhelms other parts of the Davis housing market: housing for other renters, housing for staff, housing for young families. All are priced and pushed out of the Davis market by an insufficiency of beds for students.
I don’t want to block development on the site. I want the development on the site to meet community needs.
The funny thing is, UCD recognizes their need for faculty and staff housing. Hence Aggie Village, which addresses “the University’s critical need for affordable faculty housing” (http://www.calthorpe.com/aggie-village) by providing equity-limited housing which discriminates by providing housing only for UCD staff, and the larger units in West Village (“Homes for sale to faculty and staff are planned to be priced at below-market values.”).
So if this project goes forward, which demographic in Davis still gets the short end of the stick?
So, if I understand, you are thinking that by increasing our supply of apartments, we will free up other housing that would be converted to rentals for UCD employees?
We just put my son up in a one bedroom apartment in another college town where he is attending. We could have saved a bunch of money having him live with roommates sharing a rental house. In fact, that is what we did last year with him here in Davis… to ensure he was ready to go off on his own, we actually paid to have him live in a house in Davis with four other roommates while he attended his last year of community college. For him to share a two bedroom apartment would have cost 35% more. To have him live alone in a one-bedroom apartment would have cost about 65% more.
So, unless we build enough apartments so that the supply helps drive down the rental costs, I think there will be even more pressure for our housing supply to be converted to student rentals. Personally, I prefer that more students be directed to apartment rentals because the house rental landlords are generally absent, and the kids trash the property and make rotten neighbors for families living among them. If they are in an apartment complex, they have to follow the rules and at least keep the exterior of their rental clean.
But, I don’t know how we prevent Davis homes from becoming student rentals… especially if doing so drives up the cost of education even higher than its already astronomical levels.
You know my position on the need for student housing. I think we will see a decline in demand beginning in 5-10 years. I am reading about some things UCD is doing in response to the cost challenges (the things that Obama pushed in his last speech… one of the few positions I absolutely agree with him on), and I think that is encouraging. However, colleges like UCD need a full transformation to a new business model. The little things being discussed will at best only delay the day of reckoning. The quicker college administrators understand the wave of competing alternatives coming their way, and work to position themselves to be able to compete effectively, the greater likelihood that they will survive and thrive. Otherwise, just like music, entertainment and book publishing, those that stay too stuck in their old product/service delivery paradigms will lose market share, will shrink, and many will just disappear.
It now costs $32k per year for a UCD undergrad degree. The average degree takes 4.5 years. That is $144k. The cost is inflating about 8% a year. In five years that amount will be $211k. In 10 years it will be $310k.
This is clearly not sustainable.
What if there was a quality, but flexible, degree program that supported more self-paced study? So that a motivated full-time student could complete it in 3 years or maybe even 2.5 years. Others could take 5-6 years while also working. Students could live at home during the year, while attending classes in a virtual space. They could then travel to an onsite campus 3-4 months out of the year to take classes that require it… but going a full 8 hours a day, for five days a week. What if employers were connected to this type of program… offering intern jobs that synch with school schedules… where the degree curriculum includes company-required training that prepares the student for a real job when he/she graduates?
There are many derivatives of this type of idea being worked on today. It will be the wave of the future… and it will leave traditional colleges like UCD in the dust unless that organization does the same.
It is possible that enrollment at UCD will level off in 2020. That would be great, so long as we’ve built several hundred more apartments to accommodate the current deficit in beds and the increased enrollment through 2020. When apartment vacancy is at 5%, which it has never been here, we can talk about other housing supply issues.
Not every student will want to live in an apartment. I understand there will still be demand pressure on single-family housing caused by students. I understand that many Davis residents will benefit by buying homes and renting them to students. But we are so far out of balance right now that all the other stuff is irrelevant.
That logic makes some sense.
By the way, I am not making a case that the market will completely disappear for traditional undergraduate college. I just expect the alternatives to start taking a significant chunk of market share.
Once there is enough prestige that flips from traditional to non-traditional, the slope of market change will increase drastically.
You can see a similar trend with respect to MBA programs. The market for traditional programs has shrunk due to the offering of quality working adult programs. Now most of the top MBA programs are the working adult type. UCD offers one of the best. Had UCD not opened its working adult graduate school of business program, it would be missing out on that trend.
If I were the chancellor of UC Merced, I’d be concerned. Some of the UC campuses will fare well as enrollment trends change and college learning modernizes. I think UCD is positioned to fare extremely well in that regard. Others in the UC system? Not so well.
I know a young woman who is getting a Master’s degree from San Jose State right now entirely by distance learning. She has never set foot on the campus. That’s all to my advantage, since she works part-time for me!
JS: “Zoning the land as light industrial was an error. ”
DG: “It was zoned light industrial from the time it was a tomato factory. So I’m not sure how that was a mistake.”
I stand corrected; I’d had the longtime impression that it had been re-zoned in order to earmark it for the “neighborhood friendly” business park scheme. Obviously the tomato processing plant would have required some kind of industrial zoning. Sorry. Never mind.
Allow me to make much stronger points now that you educated me about the history.
1. Arguing that the property should stay in light industrial zoning because that’s what it was when it was zoned decades ago doesn’t make sense. When built for food processing, the place was out in the country with need for truck and railroad access. Since then, as I said, “It’s now surrounded by housing, full of people who will fight such a large (light industrial) project in their neighborhood.”
2. Given that this part of town had transitioned to with city approval over the years (a community of housing and shopping), it would make sense to zone it for the same thing as the surrounding neighborhoods. It would have been far more compatible zoning for the area to have been designated for housing and related uses after it was obvious that the plant never would be revived for any use.
3. Many of the arguments bandied about now certainly will be resurrected if light industrial uses are proposed for the property in the future. And, detractors will be joined by the neighbors who won’t want such construction and business next to their homes. In the past, neighbors haven’t needed to mobilize since neither type development seemed on the horizon.
4. The more I read the lists of alleged shortcomings of the proposed project, the more I get the feeling many are really offered just to kill the development rather than to encourage necessary or desirable improvements. On the other hand, disagreements about what kind of housing should be given priority are understandable. Let the city council make this call since those who disagree about types of housing aren’t heading toward compromise or agreement.
5. Quit bullying the city council. Their job is to decide what they think is best for the town’s future after listening to everyone’s (conflicting) facts and opinions. If you don’t like their decision, gin up an election if you can fine enough like-minded folks.
I don’t understand why you’re saying it’s “surrounded” by anything. It borders on farmland to the north and east, and has busy streets to the west and south. The property immediately to the west is an apartment complex.
JS–I realize that I am being a bit defensive here but I want to respond to your one point above because I have been a constant (nagging?) critic of the lack of connectivity between this site to the city. You wrote: [quote]The more I read the lists of alleged shortcomings of the proposed project, the more I get the feeling many are really offered just to kill the development rather than to encourage necessary or desirable improvements. [/quote]
I just want to be clear that while I share the concerns Don has been raising about the type of housing being proposed, I am not using the connectivity “issue” to try to kill the project. I would have the same concern no matter what goes into that site. I am doing what I think I should be doing to make the plan be consistent with the City’s goals. I am not trying to bully the CC, but merely try to hold them to the standards that I believe they espouse concerning mode share and carbon emissions.
Don wrote:
> On the contrary. I care about housing for non-student
> renters, including UCD employees, who are presently
> crowded out of the Davis rental market by insufficient
> supply.
Let’s be clear that no one is forced to rent outside Davis due to “insufficient supply” (if you have the money you can always rent a home or apartment in Davis).
The restrictions on supply has caused an increase in rents compared to our neighbors and odds are that adding even 1,000 new expensive (FYI the new apartments in West Village are close to $2K/month for a 2 br unit with parking) apartments in the Cannery will not do much to help anyone “crowded out” of Davis.
“I don’t understand why you’re saying it’s “surrounded” by anything.”
Try looking at a map west of F street you will find about 1000 homes and east of 102 you will find the same.
Robb wrote:
> If you ride, please take a ride out to F Street
> and hop on the bike path on the east side by the
> Little League fields and then ride up and over Covell.
> After you do so, please give me your honest opinion
> about children using that route on a daily basis
> to go to schools.
Since Davis is close to the flattest city in the world it does make biking around town easier, but it scares me that anyone would think that the short man made “hills” you need to ride up to get over 80 or the railroad tracks are a big deal to anyone that rides a bike more than a few times a year.
As a kid riding my bike to school I (and every other kid in the school) road up multiple hills that were twice as long and twice as steep as the F street overpass. I was in Omaha Nebraska a few years ago and was surprised that even a city in the “great plains” has many more (and steeper) hills than Davis.
P.S. If Robb knows that there are a large number of school age kids in Davis with a level of fitness so low that they can’t even ride a bike over the tracks on Covell we should as a city focus on diet and fitness education (not bike under passes that make things flatter)…
SOD: I would say as someone who used to sprint up hills in my youth in San Luis Obispo, that if you are not in shape to go up hills, even a man made one is a bit challenging, particularly for kids.
The “hill” is not that big of a deal. Frankly, it is kind of fun for a kid to rush down the other side on a bike. If it is a problem, then going one more block to hook up with the H Street under crossing is an option. Or if headed downtown, going all the way down J Street would work.
It would be great to solve the H Street under crossing. It is a bit sketchy and scary to go through on a bike. Too narrow, and you can’t see around the corner.
[quote]Try looking at a map west of F street you will find about 1000 homes and east of 102 you will find the same.[/quote]
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/cannerysite.jpg[/img]
Between the cannery site and 102 is the Covell Village property. You know that. As I said, all the apartments to the west would have no reason to complain about a business park, any more than they would have reason to complain about a large residential development. Everything to the south, as far as I can recall, was there when it was still processing tomatoes.
[quote]Let’s be clear that no one is forced to rent outside Davis due to “insufficient supply” (if you have the money you can always rent a home or apartment in Davis). [/quote]
If you have the money, you can buy a house in El Macero.
A 5% vacancy rate is considered a healthy balance for renters and landlords. We’ve never been there. Usually we’re not even close.
Yes, its not going to have an unobstructed view of the Sierra Nevada or Vaca Mountains maybe on a really clear day you can see Sutter Buttes but I doubt it. I guess it depends on your idea of surrounded, but, from the photo, it fits my idea of surrounded on three sides, making it more like in-fill than peripheral growth.
Oh, I see. Ok, no, I wasn’t trying to say it’s peripheral growth. I was responding to this comment by JustSaying:[quote]
“It’s now surrounded by housing, full of people who will fight such a large (light industrial) project in their neighborhood.” [/quote]
There are no neighbors on two sides, the south side is across a four-lane busy street, and the folks to the west would have no more reason to complain about light industrial/office/commercial than they would to complain about residential.
The folks to the West have a railroad between them and the development. Light industrial would seem to be the least of their complaints.
In terms of apartment vacancies, this is an interesting chart from the annual UCD study on the city rental supply. This is for 2011:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/rentalvac.jpg[/img]
I think it is natural to have a somewhat harder time to fill multi-bedroom units just because there is that extra complexity of compatible roommates. But there does seem to be some opportunity to improve the coordination of support for students to find a bed in an existing multi-bedroom unit.
I’m also a bit surprised about the relatively low number for 3 to 6 bedroom units. The total from this is 1928. Some of the 3 bedroom units are apartments. The remaining number of rental houses seems too low to me. I am aware of at least four 5-bedroom student rentals. This chart says there are none. Maybe the landlord only classifies them as 4-bedroom. But in any case, I am suspect that this chart understates the number of house bedrooms available.
It would be interesting to know the total number of detached family homes in Davis, and compare it to the number of them we think are being rented for student housing.
Here is the main reason rents and home prices are high in Davis…
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/davisbuildpermits.jpg[/img]
One thing to note about those new building permits and the average cost. Note that the average cost is quite a bit lower than the median cost. This tells me we have been building a lot of low-income housing to meet the demands of the social justice liberals. All this foot-stomping and complaining about Davis not needing any more middle class and executive level housing is hogwash. We have a low supply of that type of housing too.
Since that survey data, UCD has increased enrollment by 1200+ and the apartment vacancy rate overall is now 1.7%. And they plan to add 600+ each year for another six years.
Don wrote:
> If you have the money, you can buy a house in El Macero.
If you have the money you can buy a house in El Macero, a home in Mace Ranch or rent an apartment in Davis. That was my point, you can ALWAYS buy or rent a home in Davis (or El Macero) if you have the money. It is a shortage of MONEY not a shortage of HOUSING that forces people out of Davis. If you have $140,000 in cash you can RENT a house for a year here in Davis (from a guy that just so happens to stop development of more homes in Davis). In most of the US you can BUY a decent home for $140,000 so it makes a lot of sense why the people renting homes (unless they also happen to own a lot of vacant land) don’t want to see any new development.
> Since that survey data, UCD has increased enrollment
> by 1200+ and the apartment vacancy rate overall is now
> 1.7%. And they plan to add 600+ each year for another
> six years.
As UCD keeps adding students you will ALWAYS be able to rent an apartment (or room), it will just get more expensive. Since most college age kids don’t seem to worry about debt, most will just borrow more money to pay for school, rent (and the hottest new iDevices) and more poor people will leave Davis when their rent goes up…
There is another consideration in relation to our number of building permits. We fell off at the very time the rest of the state was building. However, we have had an under-supply of housing forever. You can make the case that those big development years (Evergreen, Wildhorse, Oakshade, Alhambra, etc.) front-loaded our share of regional housing. However, going back to before those years, we again had much lower than average building permits. So, we created a pent-up demand that only got partially satisfied by those higher permit years.
Even in the trough of the real state bubble correction, we still had a low supply of homes for sale and rent.
We may be out of balance on apartment rentals, but we are out of balance on single family homes too. I don’t think we can expect those homes being used as rentals to be rented or sold as family homes as a result of building more apartments… unless we build A LOT of new apartments and also toughen up the city codes for multi-tenant detached home rentals.
[i]that if you are not in shape to go up hills, even a man made one is a bit challenging, particularly for kids.[/i]
Kids should have no problem going up (and down) hills. We should build more hills on the bike paths so they get some more exercise. Stop babying the kids. I used to have to bike six miles over all sorts of hills in the snow to get to school. Look how great of a person I turned out to be!!! =)
Seniors and special needs people are a different challenge. But if they cannot bike up and down a slope this small, they probably should not be biking, IMO.
Listen, if we are going to be a bike town, then this argument about hills is going to have to be put away and not return.
Boulder Colorado University Hill… the neighborhood that borders CU to the west is filled with hilly streets. They also have less oxygen. I think those that are making this hill argument have fallen off their soft rocking horse and have hit their head.
“I don’t understand why you’re saying it’s ‘surrounded’ by anything.”
What I meant was that while the cannery was in operation out by itself in the country, housing developments and neighborhood businesses were growing around the property–along F Street well north of the area, along Covell to the Green Burrito and out Pole Line Road well north–creating a “U” shape of neighborhood developments that now encircles the open property on three sides.
I was trying to suggest that the area became more appropriate for housing than the light industrial zoning that the cannery required in the olden days. “Surrounded” was a poor choice and “encircled” probably is too. But, you get the idea now, right?
P.S.–Where is the northern city limit line for the open land (including the cannery) north of Covell between F and Pole Line? That whole area smells like perfect infill, surrounded (so to speak) on three sides by other developments as it is.
“I am doing what I think I should be doing to make the plan be consistent with the City’s goals. I am not trying to bully the CC, but merely try to hold them to the standards that I believe they espouse concerning mode share and carbon emissions.”
I agree with the idea of telling the city council everything we think about the proposed project, including that we want them to to turn it down if that’s our feeling. I didn’t mean to imply I had any problem with your opinions. Sorry if it came across that way.
What I don’t think is appropriate is the tactic of bullying the council into not making a “yes-no” decision after all this time by threatening to try for a referendum if the council makes the “wrong” decision. Why not wait for the decision and go for the election if the council goes the “wrong” way? Don’t be cowardly, folks, is all I’m saying.
“I have described in detail to Mr Phillips why the currently proposed option (connecting to the current bike path on the south side of Covell) is unsatisfactory because it forces riders to navigate a steep slope on Covell from F Street.”
Robb: This makes zero sense. You are objecting to the best location for a grade separated crossing because it potentially connects to an existing bike path that you think is too hard for some Davis kids to navigate. This bike path along the south side of Covell will be there (and kids and mobility impair individuals will continue to use it) regardless of whether or not the Cannery project is built.
Is your point that we need to discourage traffic on this bike path? How does spending millions of dollars to build new infrastructure to the east of the project (that primarily serves the vacant Covell Village site) help to fix this problem?
And what is the maximum grade? Maybe 7%?
7%?
[img]http://www.aaroads.com/west/colorado070/i-070_wb_exit_180_11.jpg[/img]
” I want children in every neighborhood to benefit from excellent connectivity options.”
Me too.
That’s why I object to building infrastructure that primarily serves the vacant Covell Village property on county land.
What disturbs me is hearing the same “do it for the kids” rhetoric coming from both the bike community and the Covell Village people.
Why does that disturb you?
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”I am speaking as someone who works with school kids on bicycling skills and understands their capabilities (I also am a grandfather of a four year old who is now an active rider). [b]The Con Agra preferred route requires children to ride a portion that I (and others) consider to be too steep to be navigable. [/b]
If you ride, please take a ride out to F Street and hop on the bike path on the east side by the Little League fields and then ride up and over Covell. After you do so, please give me your honest opinion about children using that route on a daily basis to go to schools, the park or the library west of F. Feel free to email me at ‘> robbbike@me.com and give me your impressions.”[/i]
Robb, please accept my apologies if this question is woefully under informed. I look at the current bicycle path work being done along Interstate 80 to the east and west of the Mace Boulevard overpass, and I wonder if there isn’t the germ of a solution for the steepness issue you describe as being a problem south of Covell south of The Cannery. I am lacking some fundamental data, and perhaps you can help me. First, what is the elevation of the bike path at the J Street intersection with Covell? Second, what is the elevation of the bike path at the F Street intersection with Covell? Third, in the preferred option will the bike path elevations along the way from F Street to J Street include a “hump” that will need to be both climbed and descended regardless of whether a bicyclist is going east-to-west or west-to-east? Fourth, if the answer is “yes there is a hump planned, can’t that hump be graded away the way it is being graded away in the Mace/I-80 bike path project?
Being in education for over twenty years I never met a person on any side of any issue who wasn’t for the kids. It becomes meaningless. Its sort of the opposite of being racist. You never get anyone who claims to be racist. So what I’m saying is that you need to judge these things on substance not on rhetoric.
Silent majority wrote:
> What disturbs me is hearing the same “do it for
> the kids” rhetoric coming from both the bike
> community and the Covell Village people.
This is a classic “use the activists to get what you want” trick that developers have been using for years.
No disrespect to Robb that wants a new bike path (or in other examples where the developers restore a creek for the environmentalists or build a center for kids with disabilities), but they are just tossing a little (in the total scope of the project) money at the activists to get their help at pushing through the project.
P.S. to Robb if your 4 yr old grandkid can’t make it over the tracks between J and F without getting off the bike just wait a few months (most 4 year olds can’t even ride a bike and since kids keep getting bigger and stronger it won’t be long until your grandkid can do it)…
Robb:”If you ride, please take a ride out to F Street and hop on the bike path on the east side by the Little League fields and then ride up and over Covell. After you do so, please give me your honest opinion about children using that route on a daily basis to go to schools, the park or the library west of F. Feel free to email me at ‘> ‘> robbbike@me.com and give me your impressions.”
Robb, I see them do it every day as I walk over it to take my dogs to the park. Kids of all sizes go up the thing without any trouble that I can see. Hoards of them also come through the H St. tunnel. If anything, for those who do not want to ride over the tracks on Covell, the tunnel is a good alternative but should be improved for more smooth transitions, especially on the west side opening where the turns are too sharp for “flow”. The east side of the tunnel is easily accessed from J St., where of course the traffic light will control crossing etc.
Just for the record, that is not to say I support the residential option for the property. The surrounding neighborhoods and the cannery coexisted just fine for decades, because the property has a certain degree of separation from them.
Apologies – I had to be away from my computer for a long period and am just back now.
First SM: In what way am I rejecting the best location? I want a path coming under the Covell bridge on the SW side but I simply want the path to continue to the H Street tunnel. For others who asked, the BAC supports this option as long as improvements to the H Street tunnel are included in the development agreement.
For those who suggest that people like me a merely a tool of Covell Village owners in using the “do it for the kids argument”… I am offended by this. I give of my time to teach children how to cycle at school-based bike rodeos and special events. I took time off work this summer to not only teach but ride with children across town as part of a camp program. I don’t “use” kids to make a point, I work with them to teach them to ride safely. I have told Mr Streng and Mr Whitcomb that I am frustrated by their unwillingness to do what is right for the community by allowing an easement behind the Cranbrook Apartment. To date they have not responded.
On the steepness issue… Okay, I concede–kids can and do ride over the Covell Bridge. It is steep but they do it. It is a challenge for small children. I do not know the maximum grade there but I know there is a short steep section coming from F Street. Of course it is totally reasonable to make bikes leaving that property climb a hill and use a switchback to get to the park/library. That is clearly how we design our streets for cars: we ask people to first head east when they want to go west. Car drivers have no problem doing this and never complain if we take them out of their way to get to a destination. In addition, cyclists just need to buck up and be happy we give them anything at all–they don’t pay taxes and don’t deserve to ride on our streets and all they do is moan and complain about how bad they have it. Our infrastructure should serve cars and if cyclists don’t like it then they can drive (let’s see, I think I have covered everything).
Go back to what you were doing.
One more thing: I am very happy to meet with anyone who wants to discuss connectivity out of the Cannery site with me. I write under my real name here and I live at Dos Pinos Housing Cooperative. My email, as given before, is robbbike@me.com. I attend every BAC meeting (usually the first Monday of each month) as a Commissioner and I am happy to stay afterward to talk. I am not a shill for any developer and I am thankful for the Measure R process. I rarely get offended but when people suggest I am doing things like using an appeal for children in some less than honorable way I DO get offended (see above). I raised two kids in this town and now have two grandchildren here. As a family we bike, walk and use public transit (only). Safe and convenient cycling is a real issue to me but I try to view it in the context of broader community needs. Please contact me if you would like to talk about these issue. I am always open for coffee.
It certainly would be nice to have a direct path under Covell from the SW of the Cannery property to the H St. tunnel. This morning I looked down from the bridge at how much space there is there. The path can not be on RR land of course and there is very little space running behind the apartments where there is a sidewalk for residents. The path would have to be between these I assume if the property owners would allow it. Then the angles/configuration for approach to the tunnel also are an issue since 90° turns are very undesirable in tight spaces. Do you propose the path run between the tracks and the apartments there and then make a hard right into the tunnel?
It is tight there and some way to help deal with the sharp turn is necessary. There may (NOTE: I said “may”) be a possibility to cut through the complex and bring a path out a bit to the east of the tunnel entrance OR create a mini “roundabout” (that is what is being considered for the west entrance when the tunnel is improved and would involve pushing out the retaining wall a bit. The specifics have not been put forward yet.
“For those who suggest that people like me a merely a tool of Covell Village owners in using the “do it for the kids argument”… I am offended by this.”
I said the rhetoric you are using is the the same as what we are hearing from the Covell Village people. They’ve co-opted your issue for their own purposes. If you reject their demand that Cannery builds $10,000,000 of infrastructure to serve the vacant property they hope to develop, then you are clearly not a tool.
“when people suggest I am doing things like using an appeal for children in some less than honorable way I DO get offended”
Both you and Christal Waters are arguing that the proposed grade separated crossing is unacceptable because it’s too hard for kids to navigate. No one has suggested that your argument is dishonorable. I’m suggesting it is wrong. And you still haven’t responded to my question about why this is even a Cannery issue, since the steep grades you are referring to are on existing bike paths that will remain in use regardless of what happens with the Cannery proposal.
“I am not a shill for any developer”
I don’t think anyone has accused you of being a shill. The only shill I am aware of is Lydia Delis-Schlooser. She reportedly has a bad habit of attending public hearings and meeting with elected officials, staff, and members of the public without disclosing that she is paid by various entities controlled by the Covell Village Partners.
SM. yup, I overreacted. Apologies. The steep grades become a problem if that is the only grade separated way for people to leave the Cannery as currently proposed. As it is now there are no neighborhoods that require children to use that grade to get to school, park, library, etc. they have other options. If the project is built as Con Agra is currently proposing people leaving to go towards Central Park would be required to use that grade or detour in the opposite direction.
Am I misunderstanding your question? I am not trying to duck it but I may be missing something.
I think the general feedback you’ve gotten on the blog is that most people believe that the steepness issue is a red herring. The proposed bike path is compliant with city standards. You have failed to acknowledge is that the steep sections you are complaining about are already there and will still be there if the project isn’t approved. I would also add that everyone bicycling out of south Davis is confronted with much more challenging bike infrastructure to traverse than anything on the Covell bridge.
In my opinion, the bike community has damaged its credibility by pushing this phony connectivity issue, particularly to the extent that it aligns with the sleazy efforts of the Covell Village partners.
I have been one the most consistent and visible critics of the Covell Village folks about their obstinance on this issue.
And since I have carried a fair bit of the water for bike advocates on this issue, I guess my credibility has been damaged too. That frustrates me but I guess I have no one to blame but myself. My motives have been to try to do what I can to encourage cycling in Davis. That’s it nothing more
I will not be speaking/writing further on this issue.