The Cannery Project has in the last few months taken a side seat to the Mace 391 issue. However, as the Davis City Council had its first workshop on the project last week and is scheduled for public hearings and questioning of the applicant, it seemed like this was a good time to look at some of the critical issues facing the project.
Much like we did over the weekend, these are not an exhaustive list of questions, but rather an effort to start the community discussion.
First, we have discussed the issue of housing versus business usages a lot. George Phillips has argued, and now showed with graphics, that this is now a property where neighborhoods have grown around the site.
“I think when you look at the property,” George Phillips explained, “when you look at the property at what it should or could be, even though it’s zoned industrial, it makes sense in our mind that it’s a residential mixed use.”
“It didn’t and doesn’t make sense to us that it’s a business park site,” he said. In his opinion, that is because it was an anomaly that it was zoned industrial to begin with. It was an industrial site for agricultural purposes as a tomato cannery that the city grew around. “Neighborhoods grew up around this industrial site. So if you chose a site today for an industrial or business park, you wouldn’t say this is the place to put it because of the residential neighborhoods around it.”
But that does not answer all of the questions. If Davis does not use this land as a business park, what do they use as a business park? We have now at least several tentative answers to that question. First, the city is looking at Nishi as being a small parcel of land that would have innovation and high-tech opportunities. Second, you have the Innovation Park Task Force that looked at properties both east of Mace Blvd and north of Covell and west of Sutter Davis Hospital. Third, you have the ongoing discussion of Mace 391.
While we have received the explanations as to why the property is not well suited for a business park – the proximity to housing, the lack of easy highway access, the lack of traffic capacity – the question I think that has not been answered is whether we should wait until one of those properties becomes Measure J certified before removing 100 potential acres of business park land.
The next question is do we need more housing? If so, what type of housing do we need? Former Davis City Councilmember Debbie Nichols Poulos wrote this weekend, “Although the developers have offered several features that seniors and others who may have mobility handicaps need, they have neglected entirely to provide one single home for this group. We want smaller, one-story, detached homes.”
She continues, “Other than 19 large homes on large lots in their own enclave, there are no single-story detached homes. The only other single-story residences are stacked flats accessed by elevators. These residences are a far cry from a single-story home on its own lot, and they are larger than most seniors desire. While accessible, the elevator access presents a potential barrier; no small concern for people in wheelchairs or seniors with mobility issues.”
The form of housing is one concern that has been raised. The type is another.
Affordable housing advocates have concerns about the use of ADUs (accessory dwelling units) as affordable dwelling units. Others believe that the biggest need is student rental housing.
Most of the questions, therefore, seem driven by the type of housing that we might need and where to put that housing. This is a community discussion that has not taken place. It might be better informed by a broader discussion that looks at the parcel map as a whole and determines where we should put in housing.
For instance, as we have suggested before, given connectivity and access concerns at Nishi, perhaps the better approach on that 40-acre site would be high-density student housing, with access to the campus in a below-grade crossing. That would give students access to the campus to the north, I-80 to the west, and the trek into downtown Davis would be relatively simple via bike or by foot.
The university could even swap Nishi for Solano Park, and put the high-tech center on the Solano Park site, nestled in between the downtown and the university.
That’s, of course, just one idea.
But a discussion on the amount and type of housing really has not occurred since the last Housing Element update and a lot has changed since that study was completed.
Another critical question is that of connectivity. Members of the bicycling community have raised serious concerns about the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity from Cannery to the surrounding community.
As Mont Hubbard and Robb Davis note in their September piece, “Many issues emerge from the project EIR. Projected bike trip mode share for the development will be only 8%. It also adds 12,000 trips per day to and across Covell Blvd. at J St., already the busiest artery in the city (21,500 vehicles per day). It increases traffic by more than 50% and turns level of service (LOS) from A to D (level of service is a technical term for how freely flowing an intersection is, rated from A to F) at Covell and J during morning peak hours. Traffic effects ripple throughout the city. LOS will also decrease to level D at 8th and J during the AM peak hour. If the 8% bike trip mode share is accurate (we believe it may be less than 8%) the Cannery neighborhood will be one of the least friendly for biking in Davis.”
They continue, “Because proposed connectivity is so poor, with only one auto at-grade crossing of Covell at J St., almost all (OK, only 92%) of the 12,000 trips to work, school and shopping will be by automobile. The intersection at Covell and J will become in one fell swoop the most congested in the entire city. No parent in their right mind would send a fourth grader to school on a bike through the intersection at Covell and J. Residents will wind up driving their children to school at Birch Lane or North Davis Elementary because they aren’t confident in the bike safety /connectivity. Residents will probably even drive their cars to shop at Nugget, 3 blocks away.”
They add, “The developer plans only one grade separated bike crossing of Covell to the SW of the project. This runs south just east of the railroad under the overpass, but as presently configured it is awkward, indirect and unsafe.”
Last week, the council raised similar concerns. Clearly, this issue is a sticking point and, at some point, the developer may have to cut a deal on this to get the project approved through council.
In our interview with George Phillips, he sort of hinted at this. He said 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.”
At the same time, everyone is sort of holding back, looking for the results of the Corridor Plan which will hopefully deal with connectivity issues across the Covell Blvd corridor.
Perhaps the biggest question is whether this project ends up on the ballot. A few months ago it looked virtually certain and there is some evidence that adjacent property owners might have involvement with that. We will see where this ends up because, right now, there might not be enough votes to get Cannery even through council.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Although the developers have offered several features that seniors and others who may have mobility handicaps need, they have neglected entirely to provide one single home for this group. We want smaller, one-story, detached homes.’ “
Why must this project address her concerns? There is a big senior project being constructed near the police station right now. The problem is that because of pent up demand everyone wants this project to be all things to all people. That is impossible. The real question is if the project is ADA compliant? My guess is that it is compliant.
“Most of the questions, therefore, seem driven by the type of housing that we might need and where to put that housing. This is a community discussion that has not taken place. It might be better informed by a broader discussion that looks at the parcel map as a whole and determines where we should put in housing.”
Sadly measure R precludes a more thoughtful approach and creates an every parcel owner for themselves mentality. The Cannery and Covell situation is a perfect example. Joint planning of the two adjacent parcels obviously would have been better for everyone except the if we don’t build it they won’t come unless they pay me extra for my old house crowd. Yet because of measure R we end up with less than ideal access and bike connectivity. Why? Because one parcel needs a measure R vote and the other does not.
“
Why must this project address her concerns? “
who said it did?
“Sadly measure R precludes a more thoughtful approach and creates an every parcel owner for themselves mentality. “
actually it should force it – but i think we need to step back first and figure out what we need and then evaluate whether and how the individuals projects fill those needs.
“actually it should force it”
But it doesn’t seem to be working that way as you seem to admit.
that’s not a problem with the measure j/ r, it’s a problem with the rest of the process.
have people really completely lost interest in cannery or are they just waiting to see what council does?
“that’s not a problem with the measure j/ r, it’s a problem with the rest of the process.”
One way or another its a problem.
Regarding single story houses for seniors, I wonder if there isn’t a solution readily available if we choose to take it.
Specifically, have the developers of each lot in each development (not just Cannery) establish the default configuration and default price for each and every lot they sell. So lets say that the default configuration and default price for a particular hypothetical lot is 2,200 square feet in two stories and a $400,000 sale price. Alternative configurations would be available at the buyer’s option, but the price of $400,000 would not change. Thus if any home buyer wants to have a one-story 1,500 square foot house and are willing to pay $400,000 for it, then they can have it.
Thoughts?
Matt
It took me a long time to work through that one. I am still not sure how this that concept would improve on just selling the plot of land for a fixed price and allowing the buyer to work with an architect and contractors to build exactly what they want. It seems unnecessarily restrictive to me if there are only a few configurations to choose from.
medwoman, they are indeed going to have something like 30 lots that are available to small builders to do what you are saying, but my idea would be in addition to that “small local builder” program. If I understand Debbie Nichols Poulos’ letter to the editor correctly (and the comments of other seniors) there are lots of buyers who have no particular desire to deal with the hassle of dealing with an architect and contractors. All they want is for New Home Company to offer more single story homes with smaller yards. My idea would accomplish that.
New Home Company would be fully responsible for the design and building of the home and provide the warranty. They would turn it over turnkey to the buyer on a pre agreed date.
Having preagreed configurations is how large builders like New Home Company operate. The recently completed Willowbank 10 off Montgomery Blvd was built by Warmington Homes that way after years of the land lying fallow waiting for buyers to purchase lots and contract with their own architect and contractors. Willowbank Park off Mace Blvd is currently in the final stages of being built by a local contracting firm Brix and Mortar, but it is following the “predesigned” formula as well.
The way it has been explained to me, that method makes building the homes much more efficient. One of New Home Company’s big pitches to the various Commissions that have reviewed their proposal/application is that they have contracted with six different architects to design the various “neighborhoods” in The Cannery so that there is significant housing design variety throughout the entire project.
Does that help put my idea, which is intended to defuse the two-story vs. single story issue, into better context?
Matt
Ok, I get the part that it is more efficient and therefore less costly for the developer/builders. But doesn’t this just mean that if a potential buyer chooses the smaller, more accessible unit and pays the amount a larger, less accessible unit would cost that the developer gets the difference without having increased the material
( as opposed to functional) value of the unit. Now suppose the original owner needs to sell, or dies. The value of the unit will be that of the smaller space, yes ? This sounds highly stacked toward the developer/ builder to me unless I am missing something else.
Good questions medwoman . . . ones that I’ve wrestled with myself. In terms of the cost to the developer, if it costs them less to build the single story structures, then the difference in cost could be applied to higher quality internals for the unit. The result would be better quality of life for the same price.
The resale issue really gets to the core of supply/demand. What we are hearing is that there is a robust demand for these types of houses and a limited supply. If that is the case, why would the resale value be any less than the original purchase value?
Matt
[quote]What we are hearing is that there is a robust demand for these types of houses and a limited supply. If that is the case, why would the resale value be any less than the original purchase value?[/quote]
Even if it is true that there is a “robust demand” for this type of housing now, that does not mean that there always will be. So what you are weighing is a playing field that is sharply tilted towards the developer now with the assumption that it will equalize for the homeowner or his/her heirs in the future. I am not sure that is a bet I would be interested in making.
I’m not sure how you get to the conclusion that it is a playing field that is [u]sharply tilted towards the developer[/u]. If the combination of structural characteristics and internal amenities add up to the same cost for the developer in both the two-story and one-story scenarios, and the sale price for those equivalent packages is the same, how is it that the developer isn’t going to see the exact same bottom-line from an individual lot regardless of whether the buyer’s choice is two-story or one story? Are you assuming that the costs of a better kitchen and better bathrooms and better carpet or hardwood flooring or tile in the one-story house are going to have a higher margin for the builder than the additional square feet of living space and lesser kitchen and lesser bathrooms and lesser floor treatments in the two-story house ?
I’m simply not following your logic. Help me along. It’s kind of like going to the grocery store with $100 and you can buy lots of different baskets of groceries with different contents, but in the end, the bill at the cash register is always going to come up to $100 . . . and the cost to the grocery store is always going to be $98.
Hi Matt,
[quote]f the combination of structural characteristics and internal amenities add up to the same cost for the developer in both the two-story and one-story scenarios[/quote]
This is where I am hung up. I am having difficulty seeing how the “internal amenities” are going to “make up” the amount that would go into constructing the larger building. I can see a situation in which certain interior fixtures are at initial cost more expensive, but would likely need replacement or revision long before the entire building would. I can’t think of a single example of an “interior amenity” in a one story building that would
amount to anything approaching the value of a larger building. Can you ? In the examples you gave of better appliances, floor coverings etc. , these are items that will require replacement long before the house does and therefore will likely not play as much into resale value of the house.
If I understand your point medwoman you are comfortable that from an initial cost perspective there isn’t an issue, but that the useful life of the selected “internal amenity” items is shorter than the second story of a two-story structure. The problem that I have with that analysis is that the two-story house is going to have the same shorter useful life for its “internal amenities” and rather than comparing the useful life of a SubZero refrigerator to the useful life of the second story walls and ceilings, the more apples to apples comparison will be to compare the useful life of the SubZero refrigerator to the less expensive/lower quality Frigidare refrigerator that will go into the two-story house. Same thing with the rugs. Higher quality rugs clearly last longer than lower quality rugs. Hardwood floors last longer than rugs do. Ceramic Tile lasts longer than Linoleum does. Further, if you assume that the indoor walls and ceilings and outdoor walls have to be painted periodically, you have considerably greater expense for the larger two-story house.
Finally we get to resale value, which also appears to be a concern of yours. Again, I point to the Supply/Demand curve. If there is more Demand than Supply, the price will be higher than if Supply and Demand are matched, and even higher than if Supply exceeds Demand. In Davis, where the population is clearly getting grayer and grayer, the likelihood of Demand continuing to exceed Supply in perpetuity for one-story senior-friendly dwellings, and therefore the higher original price per square foot will be sustained.
That is microeconomics at work. Your statement, [i]”I can’t think of a single example of an “interior amenity” in a one story building that would amount to anything approaching the value of a larger building. Can you ? In the examples you gave of better appliances, floor coverings etc. , these are items that will require replacement long before the house does and therefore will likely not play as much into resale value of the house.”[/i] is worthy of your political idol Ronald Reagan’s “supply side economics.” However, houses don’t sell based on the aggregation of Supply Side costs, but rather due to the buyers’ desire for a particular life style on the Demand Side.