Two weeks ago, the Planning Commission listened to the comments of 62 members of the public, but made no recommendation to the city council. Instead, they asked staff to provide answers to a long list of questions that the Planning Commissioners individually and collectively still have. On Wednesday they will once again be asked to make a recommendation ahead of the October 22 Davis City Council Meeting.
Staff continues to propose that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the applications for the Cannery. Staff writes, “Although Commissioners expressed general support for the concept of a mixed-use development on the project site, individual Commissioners also expressed opinions on possible modifications or recommendations to the City Council.”
Staff attempts to address public and commissioner concerns by topic area. One the concerns is that “the Final Planned Development for the Mixed-use Area shall demonstrate road widths and driveways are sufficient to allow east- and west-bound buses to provide services to the area between the Mixed-use Area and the southern park. Prior to Planning Commission approval of the Final Planned Development, Unitrans and Yolobus shall be consulted to determine likely delivery of bus services and best location for an internal bus stop.”
Staff notes that the bus stop on the north side of Covell will be upgraded to have a bus shelter with bike racks. They add, “The Covell Corridor Plan is charged with potential transit stop improvements along the corridor. Additional transit improvements could be incorporated into Development Agreement or addressed through Covell Boulevard Corridor Plan.”
One of the Vanguard‘s concerns has been the plan to have the bus stops on Covell, which is quite a distance for people who live toward the northern portion of the project.
A big concern has been the bike mode share, with the EIR assuming a relatively low 8 percent bicycle mode share and bicycling advocates wishing that number to be closer to 25%.
Writes staff, “The EIR assumption for the relatively low (8%) bicycle mode share was not intended to be a target, but to allow a conservative estimate of the impacts of the vehicle trips that would result from the project. The current commute mode share for bicycling in Davis is approximately 20 percent.”
Staff adds, “The draft ‘Beyond Platinum’ Bicycle Action Plan proposes a 30% mode share target for all trips. This concept could be a possible separate recommendation to City Council, relating to Beyond Platinum Plan.”
There were concerns raised about the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report and the mitigation measures that were identified.
Staff argues, “The environmental review is intended to be a disclosure document, so that decision-makers will know the consequences of an action being considered. The EIR is not intended to be an evaluation of the merits of a project.”
Staff continues, “Anticipated impacts of a project are based upon thresholds for significance. These may be local thresholds, such as the intersection level of service standards contained in the City of Davis General Plan. Other analyses are based on standards from other agencies, such as the emissions thresholds adopted by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. When an impact is shown, mitigation measures are identified to reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels, where feasible.”
Staff responded to concerns about bicycle safety, bicycle mode share, and agricultural impacts.
With regard to bicycle safety: “Safety issues for bicyclists are addressed in FEIR Master Response 2. The perception of unsafe conditions is one of the most common and significant barriers to increasing bicycling trips.”
“It is also the hardest to identify and quantify. A facility may be safe by all accepted engineering standards and design, but may still present bicyclists, particularly the less confident or ‘on-the-fence’ casual commuter, with a reason to choose a less direct and longer route, or to choose an alternate mode of travel,” the city argues.
The city will continue to pursue improvements to Covell Boulevard, the H Street Tunnel, and other components of the bicycle network.
“The City’s current Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee Plan includes bicycle facilities such as crossings over and under Interstate 80 (now completed) and future crossings of SR113, Pole Line Road, and the UP railroad tracks,” the city writes. “As future bicycle improvement projects are added to the CIP and fee plan, residential and non-residential construction within the project (and elsewhere in Davis) will be required to make its fair-share contribution through payment of transportation impact fees.”
Once again, “Bicycle mode share is addressed in FEIR Master Response 3. The assumption for the relatively low (8%) bicycle mode share was not intended to be a target, but to allow a conservative estimate of the impacts of the vehicle trips that would result from the project.”
The city writes, “The City will continue to support cycling and other transportation alternatives, for residents/employees of The Cannery and throughout the community.”
Finally, the city does not believe there will be agricultural impacts.
“The EIR concluded that there would be no impacts on agricultural resources because the project site is not zoned or designated for agricultural uses, and is not identified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. Extending infrastructure by paving land that is designated for agricultural use (City of Davis General Plan) and has been identified as Prime Farmland would require further evaluation,” they continue.
The developers have continued to address concerns about bicycling mode share and safety. They provided the Vanguard these maps to demonstrate the connectivity that the developer is currently planning.
As Matt Williams’ analysis of the citizen comments at the last Planning Commission hearing on the Cannery demonstrates, “40 and ½ in favor of the proposal and 21 and ½ opposed to the proposal. The Planning Commission wasn’t able to make up its mind, but looking at those totals, the citizens in Council Chambers on Wednesday night weren’t as uncertain. If The Cannery can resolve the bicycle connectivity issues the number of those who are opposed to the project out of that sample of 62 might even drop down to less than 10.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Bicycle Advisory Commission examined the proposed grade separated crossing (images above) at last evening’s meeting. The BAC passed a motion (I don’t have the exact wording) saying that if this option (being the only grade separated crossing to be developed as part of the project) does not meet the needs of the community. The main (but not the only) problem, as stated previously, concerns the steepness of the slope on the west side of the Covell bridge (over 8% in places) which does not accommodate the needs of young cyclists and those with mobility challenges (bikers or pedestrians).
The BAC referred to previous motions it passed with the SPAC earlier this year in which it supported the development of a grade separated crossing to the east (to be developed as part of the project) as well as the preferred option in the DEIR to run a path along the railroad tracks to connect to the H Street tunnel (which would need to be improved as part of the project). Those motions stand.
I personally expressed deep frustration at the owners of the Cranbrook Apartment who refuse to grant the city the easement it needs to build this path but believe it can/must still be built and that the City should do what is necessary to secure this land.
Further, the Cannery Project representatives at the meeting made it clear that, as part of the Development Agreement they would [i]contribute to[/i] the development of the grade separated crossing to the east. In my view this is not acceptable because it means that there is no guarantee that the crossing will ever be built and it certainly will not be part of the project meaning that when the first house is occupied the crossing will not be in place. The cost of installing a grade separated crossing after the project is likely to be much greater AND grant funds that would be used to build it are becoming harder to come by.
It is somewhat ironic that the BAC also discussed the Drummond tunnel at this meeting. That tunnel is notable because when South Davis was being developed a grade separated crossing was planned for and built before any housing/development occurred. That tunnel was sealed for over 20 years and finally opened last year when New Harmony was completed. In other words, the City showed great foresight in creating connectivity long before any shovel hit the ground to build houses. Here we are doing exactly the opposite.
The BAC motion last evening stated that if the current preferred option were developed alongside the other two already-supported options, the BAC would not oppose it.
One of the developers at last night’s meeting told us (repeatedly) that he had taken his 5 year old son to the Covell RR overpass (which they now identify as their westbound link from Cannery), and the boy loved to ride up and down it. “Kids love hills,” he stated several times.
A number of kids may love hills, but the real issue is increasing mode share, as Robb pointed out. This means parents must also feel comfortable with the routes in and out of the development. A lot of parents do not like hills, especially those who are not in great shape. If parents are unwilling to ride over that hill when kids are younger, and therefore accompanied to school, then the habits don’t form and we may have lost those kids as daily riders when they’re older.
“I personally expressed deep frustration at the owners of the Cranbrook Apartment who refuse to grant the city the easement “
you may express frustration, but why not at least call them out – these are owned by tandem properties which are owned by the people who own the parcel next door – covell village, john whitcombe. i guess he thinks he is getting even at people for ruining another project.
Actually when I read what the BAC is asking for it certainly sounds like another crossing “to the east” would mean using Covell Village land. This is a huge issue to many people like myself who opposed that project and and are not happy with the obvious interference and obstructive actions that Whitcombe and the Covell Village developers are imposing upon the Cannery project.
I think that the bicycle groups need to be aware of the consequences of what they are asking for by asking for infrastructure “to the east” which would have significant ramifications regarding the involvement of Covell Village land.
I think it is astonishing that Whitcombe is denying the easement on his Cranbrook Court apartments for a bike path, yet he turns around has has the audacity to ask for over $9 million dollars of bike infrastructure to be built on his Covell Village site and he expects Cannery to pay for it. Simply hard to believe…
Just so others know that prior commenters are not idiosyncratic, I register my support for Becky’s views opposing collateral demands on the Cannery project.
May I remind the decision-makers that the scope of this project is developing a 100-acre mixed-use property using universal design principles integrated with existing facts and circumstances? Burdening this project with responsibilities for off-site improvements, not attributable (proportionately) to new population, rewards speculation, inconsistent with sound forward-looking growth.
Becky and sanderr – Thanks for your comments. I want to assure you that those of us who have been strongly advocating for two grade separated crossings from Cannery have been focusing on that project and that project alone. We believe that given the nature of the property if we are to encourage cycling and walking by all users we need two such crossings. Mayor Krovoza has also supported this approach. I understand your concerns re: Covell Village but want to highlight that the City is proceeding with a Covell Corridor study to improve biking all along that stretch. This work includes the possibility of a bike path along the north side of Covell (where I also believe the new water line is to run). This work is about improving our bike infrastructure overall and not focused on Covell Village. You may object to it because of your concerns but to me it is about biking needs overall and not about that property. Again, those of us working on the Cannery connectivity issue have been extremely careful to focus on that project alone and the needs it generates. At this point I have not supported further infrastructure development in that area because I want to focus on Cannery’s needs and not have the issue confused with Covell Village (even though as a bike advocate I think a tunnel under Pole Line would be a great idea for many reasons). Please contact me at robbbike@me.com if you have other concerns or want to discuss this. I fully understand your concerns as several people have articulated them to me but am happy to talk if you want to.
Robb,,
Yes, there is an issue of connectivity between bikes and Cannery, but bikes are big and dif
Regarding your comments Robb, I appreciate that you feel that your advocacy for an undercrossing “east of the Cannery project” would not create major land use issue regarding Covell Village site, but the fact is it would. The only way you can get to L St. for instance, is from Covell Village land. Now not only is this a major problem resurrecting the Covell Village issue but how can a bike underpass go there when there is all kinds of utility infrastructure under the street including gas pipes that are currently being moved underground in that area?
It is disturbing to know that the Davis Bike Club has their meetings at the Covell Village developers offices at Tandem properties and that Lydia Delis-Schlosser who works for the Covell Village developers is an avid Davis Bike Club member. She was hired by the Covell Village developers to organize CHA, the senior group who are opposing Cannery unless they get their unreasonable demand of many senior units be built, rather than allowing the community supported Universal Design to be used in the Cannery homes for units for all ages of Davis residents.
What you need to understand is that much of the division being created over the Cannery project is being motivated clearly by the adjacent Covell Village developers and you appear to be a part of it whether you realize it or not. It is common knowledge that the Covell Village developers have used the “divide the community” tactics before and they are clearly trying to do it again to kill the Cannery project.
Becky, does it also bother you that Tandem opens its offices for other non-profit organizations or that they supported the Bike Museum downtown, the Pence Gallery, Davis Schools, farmers market shed, and a variety of other local non-profits over the past several decades? Even in Davis there are things called property rights. Would you support your neighbor if he wanted an access easement in your back yard or would you want alternatives? Cannery should provide as much safe access as possible; any improvements that benefit a neighboring property should be reimbursed by that neighbor if they ever develop. Does it matter who owns the property or is more important to have a great project for bikes? That whole area needs bike improvements and the City nor the adjoining agriculture land should have to pay for it. Keep the focus on planning. I dont think we need to feel sorry for ConAgra or the Covell Village owners. They are developers and all developers should pay for improvements when their properties develop.
i always read about the great philanthropy of the tandem and whitcombe group and that’s fine, i’m not going to begrudge it, but given the amount of money those guys make, it’s a drop in the bucket. like i said, its fine but nothing that justifies the corruption and crap that they do.
[quote]What you need to understand is that much of the division being created over the Cannery project is being motivated clearly by the adjacent Covell Village developers and you appear to be a part of it whether you realize it or not.[/quote]I agree with Becky on this one.
Also, we’ve been over this ground once before.
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7583:developer-talks-to-vanguard-about-cannery-project-part-two&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86&cpage=60[/url]
It’s worth another read.
it’s pretty clear that the covell folks are intentionally trying to torpedo the cannary project. they may go as far as bankroll a campaign and i’ve heard other stories in the last few weeks. it’s all beneath the surface and thus even the vanguard isn’t reporting on it, but i have heard too many things from too many people.
DP, you say you are not going to begrudge it, but your very next sentence does just that “its a drop in the bucket” Robb, please bring DP and SM to your next meeting so you wont be fooled, especially if its at Tandem’s office. There may even be snacks.
i just have a tendency to fear the proverbial greeks bearing gifts, i think there are strings attached. i’ve been to tandem’s office numerous times in my time here. none of that detracts from the fact that the covell partners are actively attempting sabotage of cannery.
ConAgra and Covell/Tandem can take care of themselves; I’m glad I am not in their business. But these dabates often gets personal, finger pointing, etc… when it should be about best planning pratices. Let’s get the best deal for the City and bikers regardless of who owns the property.
Hang on a second. I do not represent the Davis Bicycle Club and I have not been to a Club meeting at Tandem properties. I am a member of the City’s Bicycle Advisory Commission and the motion above was passed by that City Commission. I have tried to distinguish that motion from my personal views on the issue in the foregoing. I am also a member of Davis Bicycles!, a local advocacy group that has taken the same position as the Bicycle Advisory Commission on this matter. I have stated that I am frustrated by the actions of the owners of Cranbrook and DP has called me out for not naming names but I just assume everyone knows who is involved.
So let me be clear: I realize that some decisions I make and some recommendations I provide to the city can and will be used by others or turned to ends I don’t agree with. I cannot control that. What I CAN control is fighting as hard as I can for the people who will eventually be living at the Cannery (if it is approved). Please don’t begrudge me that. I want them to have the same options as the rest of us who live elsewhere in Davis and I want kids biking out of there on a daily basis for all their activities. I am not a trojan horse for the Covell Village Developers and just because something I feel is necessary lines up with a small piece (frankly, a very small piece) of what they want doesn’t make me their dupe or mean I am being manipulated. I am advocating for this for the people who may someday live at Cannery and I deplore the obstruction of the people who are making that harder and more costly. Period.
“ConAgra and Covell/Tandem can take care of themselves”
yeah i’m not buying that after you defended tandem. if you really believed they could take care of themselves, i’d hardly think you would have needed to post: “does it also bother you that Tandem opens its offices for other non-profit organizations or that they supported the Bike Museum downtown, the Pence Gallery, Davis Schools, farmers market shed, and a variety of other local non-profits over the past several decades?”
that line suggests that you actually do work for them. i know you’ll either ignore or deny this, but it seems you are trying to have cake while eating it as well.
Yeahmyam: Regarding your comments, Davis Progressive brings up a very interesting point and I find it also interesting that you are so defensive of the Covell Village developers. On your first question, I have no objection to Tandem giving back to the community in some of these small ways. They certainly have made many millions of dollars in Davis with all of the high end developments that they have built and the fact that they own at least 25% of the apartments in town (see Tandem’s list of apartment complexes that they own on line).
So let’s be realistic, Tandem certainly can afford to give back to the community, but they apparently seem to want something in return for their generosity. They are trying to recruit seniors and bike enthusiasts to join their efforts to try to sabotage Cannery and to bring forward Covell Village again. It is important that the community see the obvious bullying going on by the Covell Village developers and reject their malicious tactics as the community did during the Measure X election.
On your second question, it is interesting that you defend the Covell Village developer’s property rights, yet they clearly have not respect for the property rights of Cannery to plan their own project. Would you like your neighbor to dictate to you how to plan the remodeling of your house? How would you like constant inference and sabotage tactics?
Cannery IS providing safe bike access, particularly via the bike path illustrated in the article that goes under the Covell overpass. What I find astonishing are the constant efforts by some bike enthusiast’s to try to convince the public otherwise. This is where the concern of the very coincidental connection of the local bike groups and Tandem plus Davis Bike Club bike enthusiast Lydia Delis-Schlosser (Covell Village developer’s employee hired obviously to try to kill the Cannery project) comes in.
I agree with you however that we do need to focus on the planning, however, please do not try to convince me that any overpasses or underpasses “to the east” do not involve Covell Village. They would and the public needs to know that the bike enthusiast’s and the Covell Village developers are asking for the same thing which would resurrect the Covell Village issue. So it is pretty evident that there is manipulation going on in a way by the Covell Village developers to divide the community on Cannery and to try to kill the project.
[quote]This is where the concern of the very coincidental connection of the local bike groups and Tandem plus Davis Bike Club bike enthusiast Lydia Delis-Schlosser (Covell Village developer’s employee hired obviously to try to kill the Cannery project) comes in. [/quote]
Someone else can provide more detail about this, but Davis Bike Club, Davis Bicycles!, and Davis Bike Collective, are all very different organizations. And the Bicycle Advisory Commission has no direct connection to any of them; it’s a regular city commission.
Becky you wrote:
[quote]Cannery IS providing safe bike access, particularly via the bike path illustrated in the article that goes under the Covell overpass. [/quote]
The Davis Bicycles! and the Bicycle Advisory Commission disagree with you on this. With grades of 8% on the west side of the Covell Bridge (the path riders are supposed to take to go towards Community Park), the route is not even ADA compliant. It is not appropriate for young riders and unskilled ones. It is not appropriate for those with mobility limitations. We can do better.
The groups making these judgments and recommendations are not merely “bike enthusiasts”. We are citizens who work very closely with children (I will be working children at two school rodeos over the next two weeks), know their limitations and seek to make our infrastructure as safe as possible for them. We are also people who advise the city on how to improve the safety of said infrastructure. We spend time educating ourselves, examining alternatives and using the information to recommend best practices. We are NOT enthusiasts. We are people who view cycling as a transportation option on par with automobile, pedestrian and transit modes.
Our city does not produce substandard and unsafe automobile infrastructure. It does not require car drivers to drive out of their way to the east when they want to go west. We should not produce this type of infrastructure for bicycling.
I repeat–the organizations of which I am a part–and which are making these recommendations and drawing these conclusions–have nothing to do with Tandem or Covell Village and we are acting in this case to try to assure that the transportation options for those living at the Cannery are on par with what the rest of us enjoy every day.
Robb, again, I appreciate your good intentions but the bike infrastructure you are asking for involves Covell Village land and that creates significant problems regarding land use. The bike infrastructure you are asking for would basically be serving a vacant agriculture parcel, which technically, does not need it.
You are asking for some of the same elaborate bike infrastructure that the Covell Village developers seem to think that they are entitled to have built on their Covell Village site and yet to be paid for by the Cannery project. It goes beyond outrageous that the Covell Village developers want Cannery to pay $9 million dollars for all of this infrastructure to be built on their Covell Village county ag parcel making that land more development-ready and to increase its monetary value.
The continued pursuit of this bike infrastructure by some bike community members despite the concerns raised, seems rather insensitive particularly when many residents have made clear their opposition to this excessive bike infrastructure which is off-site from the Cannery project.
Don, regarding your comment, I recognize that these are all different organizations, however it seems quite evident that there has been pro-active efforts by opponents of the Cannery to manipulate the bicycle community to create problems, rather than solutions.
Sorry, but I work in Sacramento; but I have used their office after hours with another non-profit group unrelated to both bikes and seniors and. The Cannery is able to plan their property as they see fit, subject to City approvals, but if they require additional property its another issue. Like if your home remodel needed a small portion of your neighbors back yard. The more bike routes the better-no conspiracy there for me but you know more than I do apparantly.
Becky – What we are asking for is a fairly standard piece of infrastructure (go along Covell to the east to see another one or under various parts of greenbelts in North and South Davis for the same). It is not elaborate and it “basically” serves the needs of real people who will someday live in Cannery. That it sits adjacent to Covell Village is incidental–that space is merely a connector like we have all over the city to make a piece of infrastructure “doable”. We have to have it that far east to get an undercrossing (or overcrossing) that will work in an engineering sense.
No one has manipulated me.
This infrastructure is not “excessive” in my view.
Robb – I would have to say that, yes,we disagree on several points. Not only is what your asking for not a “fairly standard” piece of infrastructure, but it is not a minor issue either. You want to diminish the involvement of Covell Village land and unfortunately, that also is a very major issue.
I can see that you are not familiar with the land use issues in our community and that is probably one of the main reasons why we have such different positions.
Hmmm. Becky, though I am no land use expert, I think I have a pretty decent understanding of the land issues related to Cannery and Covell Village. Our disagreement is just that. It concerns different views of the risks inherent in placing this perfectly reasonable piece of infrastructure on the edge of this piece of land. Land that, by the way, would require a Measure R vote to develop for any other use than ag.
Robb – Sorry, but I thought we had agreed to disagree, but given your last comment, apparently not. Given your “perfectly reasonable piece of infrastructure on the edge of this piece of land” comment (which honestly, is not at all reasonable) it sounds like you really do not recognize the concerns of the many citizens opposed to any involvement of the Covell Village land for bike paths.
Perhaps it is because you have only lived in Davis for 5 years and did not experience what so many citizens went through to defeat the Covell Village developers in 2005 that you do not seem understand the ramifications of what you are asking for.
It is so unfortunate to see that you seem to be caught up as a participant in the Covell Village developers divisive strategy to try to stop the Cannery project.