In November 2013, the city council narrowly approved the Cannery project on a 3-2 vote. A key provision of that project was having grade-separated crossings to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to avoid the heavily congested Covell Boulevard crossing to the south.
The agreement had a grade-separated crossing at the southwest corner of the project. It also provided the funding to “implement key transportation improvements that will serve The Cannery and enhance the existing network, such as improvements to the H Street tunnel and funds to implement a second grade separated crossing of Covell Boulevard.”
However, both grade-separated crossings never made it into the development agreement, and a crossing to the east was always deemed to be problematic at best.
On the city council agenda for next week is the city staff report on the grade-separated crossing options feasibility study.
Staff writes, “Background and Analysis as part of the Cannery subdivision EIR, three potential bicycle/pedestrian connections were analyzed and cleared. However, the Development agreement for this project chose to focus on two of the alternatives.”
Staff is recommending Option 1, which “is a connection that originates from the multi-use path within the southwest corner of the Cannery and runs south along the UPRR tracks, then sweeps to the east connecting to the Covell Boulevard multi-use path.”
That differs from what was the “preferred option” that “originates at the multi-use path within the Cannery and runs south across the private property of two private apartment complexes adjacent to the UPRR tracks down to the H Street tunnel.”
Staff writes, “The purpose of the study is to determine whether a cost effective alternative crossing could provide equal or better connectivity than Bike Path Option 1.”
Staff notes, “In review of the undercrossing option originally explored, some concerns emerged. This alternative evaluated an undercrossing beginning at the multi-use path within the Cannery, crossing under the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks via tunnel, crossing under the F Street drainage channel, and rising to grade at an access point with the F Street multi use path.”
Staff argues that this alternative is “cost prohibitive.” They cite the following:
- The need to construct a “shoo-fly” to reroute the railroad tracks around the active line.
- The depth of the boring underneath the railroad tracks and channel.
- Waterproofing of the tunnel being constructed within close proximity of the channel.
- The need to construct a pump station to handle high water events within the channel.
“Based upon this analysis, staff met with the Council subcommittee, Robb Davis and Lucas Frerichs, on November 19, 2015 to discuss options and to seek further direction. Due to the overall cost of the overcrossing options and the size of the structure needed to cross the railroad, it was decided to pursue two additional undercrossing alternatives,” staff writes.
Staff comes to the conclusion, “In reviewing the costs associated with these different alternatives, they do cost substantially more than Bike Path Option 1. However, the developer’s contribution of approximately $1.4M for Bike Path Option 1 offsets a portion of the cost. In addition, as part of the development agreement, approximately $4.6M in Roadway Impact Fees are anticipated to be generated from the Cannery and the project will also contribute a fee of $6,717 per market-rate residential unit, generating approximately $3.7M in Community Enhancement funds for transportation and circulation improvements. These fees will not be paid all at once, but will reimburse the City for a portion of the costs associated with the construction of one of the other alternatives should the Council decide to pursue one of the above alternatives.”
Staff adds, “After analyzing all alternatives, staff recommends moving forward with Bike Path Option 1. This is based upon the time to design, complete environmental clearance and the difficulty and cost of the construction of the other alternatives. With Bike Path Option 1, the project has already been designed, has environmental clearance and would be paid for and constructed by the developer. Prior to approval of the plans for construction, staff will present the Bike Path Option 1 details to the Bicycle, Transportation and Street Safety Commission for input.”
The path that the city is now proposing is one that bike advocates argued against from the start.
In the last few days some have expressed horror that the city has allowed Cannery to get away without building the H Street Connection. There are understandings about the problems with the east side and Tandem Properties’ unwillingness to allow the city to have an easement to build the connect there, but some have suggested that Cannery could have built under the railroad and come out by the Little League Park to access the more lightly traveled H Street on the west side of the tracks and the bikeway.
Others have pointed out the city staff’s recommendation is Option 1. Option 1 is what Ashley Feeney took to the Bicycle Advisory Commission prior to the project and that the Commission had skepticism that it was not a good design.
Of course now the city has hired Ashley Feeney as a planner, just as Cannery has reemerged with a series of asks and city staff is now backing Cannery’s preferred (and least expensive) solution for the bike separated crossing.
From the perspective of many, Cannery is the failure that keeps on giving. One of the reasons that Cannery ended up being a 3-2 vote is that the council majority would not insist that two grade-separated crossings would be in the developer agreement. At that point the city lost its leverage and its ability to compel Cannery and the New Home Company to build both crossings.
But it gets worse, because then the council voted 3-2 to allow the New Home Company to have a CFD without even insisting on the two crossings.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Nishi Is far worse than this. Brought to you by mostly the same staff and CC members
Not really because Nishi will have all features locked into the baseline features and the development agreement. Cannery escaped having things in the DA and the city let them off the hook.
Then tell us what mitigation property has been set aside by Nishi.
Why do you think that matters? They have clear requirements by law to provide the size and location, if they don’t do that, they are in clear violation of the law and it can be enforced. The Cannery project on the other hand, had no clear enforcement mechanisms without provisions being included in the DA and moreover they are free to come back for changes for things in the DA any time they want. In Nishi, everything in the baseline project features has to go to the voters for changes. Those are clear differences which is the point I was making above.
BP, I do not know why the site of the Nishi mitigation has not been disclosed, but I do know that given the agricultural land ownership by the Nishi partners around Davis, that they have an abundance of land that will significantly exceed any mitigation expectations you or anyone else may have.
Michael
“Nishi Is far worse than this”
Nishi has one huge mitigating factor going for it. Location, location, location !
Tia: you are correct: toxic air toxic air toxic air!! Vote YES to immerse the lungs of our young in the diesel soup. I’m really surprised by your position on this one.
Hyperbolic BS. You have no idea what you are talking about. And this discussion isn’t about Nishi. Go AWAY!
As Mrs. Will has previously posted, she investigated possible negative health effects from possible air quality concerns in places like Olive Drive which breathe the same at Nishi, and found that there was no data suggesting such. If you are going to criticize Nishi, at least do so with facts and evidence. Air quality and air patterns is something which requires enormous amounts of testing and modeling because of the countless variables that influence it. I am surprised, that you, Mr. Harrington, who claim to want one study after another, would so cavalierly bandy about such accusations without any real proof or corroborating data. Nishi’s air quality was professionally studied by experts as part of the EIR who produced recommendations as to how to mitigate any concerns. These include planting a dense tree buffer between the property and the highway, installing state-of-the-art air filtration systems in the residential units, and locating the residential components at the farthest point on the property from the highway. Nishi will incorporate all of these as part of the conditions for the project to move forward, with the result that air quality will be fully mitigated.
This proves why every detail must be ironed out and in writing at the time projects are either put out for vote or approved by city council.
Impossible. Unreasonable. BP, there isn’t a development anywhere that can meet this standard. Have you ever had a custom home built for you? If so, you would know that the only thing guaranteed is that you will have many, many issues and changes to iron out from the time the plans are finalized to the time you get your CofO and the mortgage funds. Now increase the variables by an order of magnitude.
When a developer builds for a city, there should be a partnership between the city and the developer. Partners work together for their mutual best interest. If the city comes at it that they are going to expect to win every argument when there is a conflict of interest, well then it isn’t a partnership… it is an adversarial relationship. And that is not a good way for a unsophisticated city like Davis to work.
Jeez… David singing the song of developers who buy junk land in the county and don’t tell the public it’s location and nature before the election ?
“Son of R” coming up
What I’m singing is the difference between a non-Measure R project and a Measure R project. These differences are a good part of why we both have and need Measure R. You are too deeply entwined in Nishi to be objective at this point.
Good lord, Mr. Harrington, you are nothing if not prolific in your attacks on Nishi. You certainly know, however, that Nishi is legally required to comply with the City’s agricultural mitigation ordinance which says that the land must be located in the Davis planning area with similar soils and is subject to review by the Open Space Commission and approved by the City Council. Furthermore, city-owned land may not be used to fulfill any part of the agricultural mitigation. This seems to address the concerns you have raised. If you want accountability to ensure the quality of the mitigation land, fortunately, the ordinance provides two layers of oversight (the Open Space Commission and the City Council). No city land can be used. And, the land that is used must be similar in soil. I really don’t see what the issue is here. I would be very interested to hear from you, or from anyone else who echoes your claims, what the problem is here.
Based on Matt Williams’ comments, it seems likely that the owners of the Nishi site own other land that would likely be used as mitigation. Is that correct? If so, is there anything preventing you from telling us which parcel(s) that the owners have in mind?
Just would like to know. (I probably won’t look for your response, tonight.)
The current mitigation ordinance is basically a scam on the public. It implies that the public gets some value if they vote for the project when in fact there is little land value coming back to the public.
It’s a general difficulty trying to mitigate land is that somebody has to be willing to give that land for mitigation. That is the shortcoming of those kinds of ordinances.
Uh… nobody “gives” land… generally, they sell the ‘development rights’ by placing an easement on it…
hpierce wrote:
> Uh… nobody “gives” land… generally, they sell the ‘development
> rights’ by placing an easement on it…
This is a perfect system to funnel cash to politically connected farmers and ranchers as a think you for past “donations”…
Perhaps another reason that advance identification of the parcels should be part of a future Measure R requirement.
Michael
“It implies that the public gets some value if they vote for the project when in fact there is little land value coming back to the public.”
To be fair, we simply do not know that about Nishi because we do not know the location of the planned mitigation land. I agree with the right to know. I do not agree that the developer is planning to “scam the city”.
I agree that we do not know the Nishi developer’s intentions (with certainty). However, if Nishi is approved, I suspect that we’ll (later) find out that the mitigation site is relatively low-cost, in a location far removed from the city (and not under any real threat of development). (That’s why I’d like to see it spelled out, as part of the requirements of a future Measure R agreement.)
Regarding the primary point of the article above, it’s difficult to believe that Davis (Bicycle-City, USA) would allow the Cannery to proceed without settling on (and beginning construction on) the route of the bicycle overpass.
Of course we are going to get a low cost, location removed from the city – that is the land that is available and it is legally permissible.
I don’t get it, Michael Harrington wants to re-write Measure R, it’s not like Measure R votes have been prevalent or passing. To me the added costs and risks are actually going to work against us, producing lesser developments because who is oging to pump $5 million into a losing election?
The Pugilist:
It depends on one’s goal, regarding agricultural mitigation efforts. If your goal is to preserve land that is not under any realistic threat of development, then the current system works fine. If, on the other hand, you’re willing to support a development because it helps prevent future runaway development (outside of city boundaries), then the current system isn’t working very well.
For me, the overall goal of Measure R is to provide the community with an opportunity to consider a limited number of “quality” developments (outside of city boundaries) that actually have a good chance of passing. Identifying specific parcels would help achieve this.
Identifying specific parcels with a chance of being developed and getting them into conservation is futile.
“For me, the overall goal is to consider a limited number of “quality” developments (outside of city boundaries) that actually have a good chance of passing. Identifying specific parcels would help achieve this.”
We know what those are. Nishi seemed the logical – close to the university, close to downtown, people still don’t like it. If that’s the case, nothing is passable in Davis.
Even under the current system, specific parcels are eventually identified. I’d rather see that process occur up-front (prior to a vote).
I’m always surprised at the level of resistance (and “defeatism”) displayed by those who are strongly pro-development. Even when specific suggestions are made by those who prefer slower growth, it meets with resistance. (For example, how many times has Mike Harrington invited developers to discuss/disclose mitigation, without any response?)
Regarding Nishi, the mitigation site has still not been disclosed. It does not appear likely that the site will serve the purpose of mitigation (at least from my point of view).
However, I acknowledge that there are other concerns regarding Nishi that might lead to its rejection.
Ron – Can you provide an example in which a mitigation site identified under the current system did not meet your exacting standards?
In general, I believe there are fairly specific requirements regarding the proximity of the mitigation and development sites.
I concur with Adam Smith’s second paragraph.
As I noted in my earlier response to Mike Harrington, in a coincidence of timing, the Open Space and Habitat Commission had an hour-long agendized discussion of the Ag Mitigation Ordinance at their meeting last night. Based on what I heard in that discussion, as well as my personal reading of the Ordinance contents, I believe Adam is correct that the Ag mitigation Ordinance contains (fairly) specific requirements regarding the proximity of the mitigation and development sites.
See
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Open-Space-and-Habitat-Commission/Agendas/20160502/Ag%20Mitigation%20Presentation%20OSHC%20May%202016.pdf
and Attachment 2 of
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Open-Space-and-Habitat-Commission/Agendas/20160307/Staff%20Summary%20–%20Commission's%20MRIC%20Discussion.pdf
Ron (re: 10:09 comment)
Of course you would… one more potential nail in the coffin for a Measure R vote…
For instance, I like pretty much everything about the proposed Nishi project EXCEPT the direct motor vehicle access to W Olive… to me, that’s more of a spike or stake than a nail, but the more specific (let’s get down to the details of utility sizing, materials, etc.) a project is, the more folk who could find an element they dislike, and will vote accordingly… usually in the negative.
That’s a pretty cynical view. (Maybe true of some, not sure.) For me, I’d rather have something worthwhile that I can “point to” in advance of an election, knowing that it’s saved by approval of any given development. (And, thereby avoiding future battles on that same “saved” site.)
Overall, I hope that these battles are few and far between, in the future. However, I’m not counting on it (as the real estate market has mostly recovered).
My “exacting standards”? Do you mean because I’d prefer that mitigation sites be identified, under probable threat of development within the foreseeable future, helping to establish ultimate boundaries of the city, and avoiding future never-ending battles regarding development on these sites, outside of city boundaries?
And, you’d apparently prefer that sites be disclosed after a vote? (And, just trust that the developer and city will come up with an appropriate site at that point?)
But, to answer your question, I don’t remember what the prior mitigations were, regarding earlier proposals. And, we still don’t know what they are prior to a vote (including for Nishi).
To clarify, sites that are close to the city are most likely to be under threat of development, within the foreseeable future. (I understood that this was the primary purpose of agricultural mitigation – to help prevent runaway development of farmland.)
So, the answer is that there have be no prior mitigations under this ordinance, so you can’t possibly have any examples of a mitigation that doesn’t work. How can you make statements like this:
If your goal is to preserve land that is not under any realistic threat of development, then the current system works fine. If, on the other hand, you’re willing to support a development because it helps prevent future runaway development (outside of city boundaries), then the current system isn’t working very well.
Identifying mitigation sites prior to approvals is very difficult. To do so, a developer would have to option or purchase land (or easements) for which he/she has no idea of whether or not the proposed development would be approved. In addition, the time frame to approval, especially with litigious sorts like the one Michael Harrington is involved in, can delay approvals for years. Under these conditions it is not feasible to identify the mitigation land prior to approval. But it is feasible to have a set of rules and policy about what fits for mitigation land. It has to be flexible to allow for the size of development and the size of the mitigation parcel. And one has to recognize, there are a very limited number of parcels which are immediately adjacent to the city. This type of policy is what the city has in place today, and what the developer will have to comply with.
Ron, the Open Space and Habitat Commission discussion of the Ag Mitigation Ordinance last night also illuminated the fact that there have been no actual mitigations since the passage/enactment of the Ordinance.
Adam:
O.K. – I see some of your points, here. I’ll think about this, some more. Maybe Mike Harrington will have a response, as well? (However, as Matt pointed out, there apparently haven’t been any completed mitigations since the ordinance was enacted.)
Can you share what the current requirements/guidelines are? Perhaps there’s room to strengthen them, to better-ensure that the land is close to the city, etc. And, to help ensure that there are no subsequent (after-the-vote) “sweetheart deals”, as described by South of Davis. (And, to avoid future battles on those same sites.)
Under the current system, I’m not sure what I’m helping to “save”, by supporting any given development. I’d really like to have something to point to, prior to an election.