On Tuesday, the city council will receive an update on the status of the last major infill development parcel within the current city limits of the city of Davis. ConAgra has proposed a revised 541 unit mixed-use commercial and residential housing development on the 98.1 acre property that sits north of Covell Blvd between the rail track and the property known commonly as Covell Village.
Back in February of this year, the city council directed staff with authorization to proceed with the preparation of the EIR to evaluate the proposed project.
According to this week’s staff report, since February, the applicant has been preparing information necessary for the EIR and refining the project site plan. “The New Home Company” has entered into a contract with ConAgra to develop the residential portion of the project.
The current proposal has downwardly revised the number of units from over 600 to 541. That includes 87 low density residential, 212 medium density residential, 218 high density residential, and 24 mixed-use which would be about 110,000 square feet of commercial and 28.7 acres of parks and greenbelts.
According to the staff report, “The primary changes compared to previous plans include: a more traditional grid street system; elongation of the park with two smaller spaces which extend farther north in the neighborhood; increased connectivity of housing to parks/open space and the internal bike/pedestrian network; and increasing the percentage of lots with north – south orientation.”
The proposed schedule would include an EIR public comment period in November, NRC review at the end of November with Planning Commission status report set for October 24. There would be a Planning Commission hearing in December with responses to comments and the final EIR in January. The final hearing would be in March with council hearings and certification and findings in April.
Controversy
However, Cannery remains a controversial development that pits two competing interests and needs – the need for residential development suitable for young families and senior citizens against the need for Davis to develop commercially through high-tech business parks that can utilize the proximity of the university.
The loss of Sue Greenwald in June removes a potential advocate for the business park development on this site.
Back in February she argued: “If we are as business-friendly as we say we are, then we would preserve more of this land than is in this plan for neighborhood-compatible mixed use, business park, offices and high-tech.”
She added: “We need that land and anybody who says that there’s no market for it doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
On the other hand, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk sees this as an opportunity to provide housing to young families.
“I think we do need to plan for housing and we need to plan for it in a very smart and measured and environmentally sound way,” Councilmember Wolk said. “What I like about this project is that it’s oriented toward two demographic groups whom I think … we need to be concerned about.”
It turns out the property may not be ideal for either use. ConAgra is serious about developing this parcel as mixed-use, and has admittedly spent considerable time and energy improving the project.
The ConAgra dilemma is just this one – if we give the property for one use, we deprive the other use. There is but one property and while we can call it mixed-use, mixed-use does not fully split the proverbial baby.
Aside from the philosophical dilemma, there are practical ones as well. We start, of course, with the need for housing during a time when the real estate market continues to be down.
There are other problems as well.
One of the issues that was brought up are linkages of the pedestrian and bicycle paths to the rest of the city. The problem with the site is that it is pretty much cut off from the rest of the city with Covell Village on the east, the railroad tracks to the west, nothing to the north, and Covell Blvd to the south.
The developers wrote in their February revisions to the project, “Bicycle and pedestrian connections will integrate the site into the City. The Council identified that creating strong and viable off street bicycle and pedestrian connections are of critical importance for site planning.”
They propose three linkages, first at J Street: “The East Covell Boulevard/J Street intersection will be reconstructed to improve turning movements and accommodate easy and safe at-grade pedestrian and bicycle movements. With the improvements, bicycle and pedestrian connections will be available from the southeast corner of the project, across East Covell Boulevard to link to existing east, west and southbound movements.”
The problem is that “at-grade” is precisely what I do not believe Mayor Krovoza wanted to see there. They, however, are proposing an undercrossing on the southwest side which would link the project to the existing bicycling facilities. And they are planning one at the Commerce Drive intersection, which would be at-grade. There is still no plan for crossing to the west.
The transit plan remains problematic: “Unitrans and Yolobus will provide future transit services to The Cannery neighborhood. A new transit center, with a route map, shade structure and seating, will be constructed along the The Cannery frontage on East Covell Boulevard, immediately west of the J Street intersection. The transit center will be directly accessible from the mixed use area.”
This does not fix the problem that the neighborhood goes a half-mile deep, and while the bus stop location would be accessible to the front portion of the residences, it would be a long trek for those living in the northern half of the project.
Moreover, this plan simply does not have the sustainability and environmental innovations of other projects.
On the sustainability features, the developers argue, “The project’s practical and responsible application of measures represents the boldest approach to sustainability of any neighborhood in the City and is setting the bar for a privately developed community.”
They continue: “The project will comply with the Davis General Plan policy and Tier 1 of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (adopted by the City January 1, 2011) and proposes a carbon reduction plan in furtherance of the City’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions standards, thereby reducing the project’s carbon footprint and contribution to global climate change.”
So, it will comply with, but not exceed. I have still not seen an estimated figure for GHG reduction like we saw with both Wildhorse Ranch and also UC Davis’ West Village.
The design strategy to reduce GHG emissions includes a range of measures in three components:
- Utilize passive solar design and tree shading to reduce energy demand;
- Design building systems and equipment to further reduce energy use;
- Mitigate remaining GHG emissions with on-site renewable energy, such as photovoltaic systems
They further argue: “The residential buildings in the project will exceed California’s 2008 Title 24 Energy Code by 40%, which is equivalent to 33% greater than 2010 Cal Green Tier II requirements.”
They achieve this through high-performance windows, walls and roof, ducts in conditioned space, high-efficiency heating and cooling along with water heating equipment, high-efficiency lighting, ventilation cooling, energy star appliances and high-efficiency heaters.
“The passive design and energy efficiency strategies associated with the project will reduce energy demand of homes, office and commercial uses. Most of the remaining residential energy use (and hence GHG emissions) would be further reduced through photovoltaic (PV) systems or solar panels,” they write.
They add: “Residential units would be built to accommodate and be wired for a rooftop PV system. Rooftops of residential units and commercial buildings could be used for PV systems through a combination of lease and/or ownership programs.”
As we noted back in February, it would actually be helpful to know if the community wishes to develop housing on this site before the company sinks more money into the project. Unfortunately, that is not possible under given constraints. Ultimately, this project likely goes to the voters even though it is not a Measure J project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Ultimately, this project likely goes to the voters even though it is not a Measure J project.”
Let’s make it so because what we need there is a business park. Bring in good jobs and housing will follow.
I don’t see why this project would go to the voters. I think it is likely to pass the council, since I count 3 almost-certain yes votes. So Davis won’t be getting a business park there — or, very likely, anywhere else, other than what might happen at Nishi. And they’ve reduced the number of units. So the last parcel suitable for rental housing on a large scale will be gone, too.
The council might delay it by haggling over details, but my guess is the final plan will be very close to what we see now.
So much for economic development. So much for affordable housing. Big winner: ConAgra.
This is really the last parcel of appreciable size for business development and should be used as such, and it is zoned as such. I do not see why it would go to the voters. But I wish the council members would look at the bigger picture than thinking everything should go to housing.
Plenty of land to develop outside of the limit line should real demand arise.
Aside from the obvious political problems, here is a serious factor to consider in developing any large parcel outside the city limits: [url]http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb_gmap/[/url]
unlike most others, mr. toad simply doesn’t care.
Toad:
“Plenty of land to develop outside of the limit line should real demand arise.”
This is the last big sized plot of land that is already zoned for business. Any of the land outside the limit is subject to a Measure R vote. We know how those votes have went. Bring in business and new jobs. That’s how a community thrives.
As Toad suggested a very long time ago – let them build their houses here, but lets triple or quadruple the City water hook-up fee to put a community downpayment on the drinking water treatment plant. And while we’re at it, increase the sewer hook-up fee as well. Our City connection fees are a fraction what they could be.
[i]Aside from the obvious political problems, here is a serious factor to consider in developing any large parcel outside the city limits:[/i]
Don – Is your point soil quality?
[i]Don – Is your point soil quality?[/i]
Yes.
Soil quality in terms of geotechnical engineering and building codes does not seem to be too much of a problem given that much of the existing development in Davis is already done on poor soil. Just ask my West Davis drywall cracks why they exist! I think foundation technology has come a long way to support building on almost any surface. What are the issues? Is it just the cost to comply with soil compaction codes?
Where is Greg Kuperberg when you need him. His response would be, “that soil is equally good at growing houses as it is at growing tomatoes” – or something along those lines. Oh Greg, where art thou?
I think Greg keeps riding the UCD gravy train back to Europe for a work-related thing. He dropped out for almost a year at one point while he was in France; which prompted me to ask him if the French had Internet service yet. He assured me they did.
So, do commercial properties follow Greg’s tomato-growing rule?
[i]oil quality in terms of geotechnical engineering and building codes does not seem to be too much of a problem given that much of the existing development in Davis is already done on poor soil.[/i]
That isn’t my point. It isn’t an engineering issue. Once you’ve built on farmland, you can’t farm it.
The point is that you should not continue to develop on prime agricultural soil. In fact, it is the policy of Yolo County that prime farmland is not to be developed.
The fact that some of Davis is already built on prime ag land isn’t relevant. What was done badly in the past shouldn’t guide future development policies. We are talking about annexation of peripheral property for commercial or residential development. The only soils that should be under consideration are those that aren’t suitable for farming. That rules out pretty much everything adjacent to Davis on the east side, specifically including Mace Curve.
You will be happy to know that some of the soil north of Covell, west of the hospital, would be suitable on this basis.
So cheeky Don.
I happen to love tomatoes, although my home grown tomatoes were decimated this year with tomato spotted wilt virus. I read in the Woodland newspaper that Yolo County was a virus hotspot this year. Growing tomotoes, both commercially or for fun, may be a thing of the past if the county and its farmers can’t get this virus under control. In which case, growing houses may look more lucrative a farming practice to some.
Totally off topic, but does Don have any suggestion on how to prevent spotted wilt virus for next year? Or do I just plant and cross my fingers that the thrips stay away.
Jeff – that’s got to be some nice gravey Greg is enjoying. Trips to France, eh? I wouldn’t mind that gig.
Growing tomatoes will be a thing of the past if the price per lb. isn’t high enough. They aren’t the only crop hereabouts. There are management practices for thrips, including organic and synthetic options to be applied to the young plants. It wouldn’t surprise me to see thrips populations decline if we get back to normal summer temperatures with the end of La Niña.
It isn’t cheeky, DE. Preserving good ag soils is a policy matter for Yolo County. Or do you disagree?
I should have quoted. Cheeky was in reference to you pointing out that good soil for development was near Jeff’s neighborhood. But if it meant building of a Best Buy that he could walk to, I bet he’d be happy with that.
[i]”Jeff – that’s got to be some nice gravey Greg is enjoying. Trips to France, eh? I wouldn’t mind that gig.”[/i]
DE, yeah I admit to being a bit envious about Greg’s work travel. I know a few other UCD profs that get to see the world on the taxpayer dime while they are teaching or researching. I have never been myself. My wife and I think about it every year, but then AMT hits me again, and there is nothing left in the kitty to go see the Frogs. 😉
And, I agree that Don’s comment was a bit cheeky… if we had not already gone around and around on the topic. I already knew that the soil in that area is already certified for a Home Depot and a big clothing/department store. It is practically begging to be developed with all the 113 access and nothing but dead weeds.
Ah, but once the ConAgra site is built the pressure will be on to build out at Mace Curve. Don’t you think some nice apartments, including senior housing, would be great across from Stonegate over there north of Covell?
[quote]Don’t you think some nice apartments, including senior housing, would be great across from Stonegate over there north of Covell?[/quote]
Do you mean, to match the apartments and senior housing that lines Covell west of 113 already? In all seriousness, the mirror image of what is already there is a fine idea.
Senior housing, including wheelchair accessible units with universal design features that can be utilized be individuals with disabilities, is much needed and is in short supply in Davis. The ERC senior complex, which has apartments that are accessible and wheelchair friendly, are limited to seniors over the age of 62.
There is a severe shortage of housing units for those who, like myself, use wheelchairs but are not seniors over the age of 62. There are wait lists for any housing that does have wheelchair compatible units. Many universible design apartments that have features for individuals using wheelchairs are occupied by people with disabilities who can stand or are otherwise not mobility impaired.
I currently live in a private apartment complex in which I had to pay $750. to modify the bathroom for wheelchair use (which is not re-imbursible.) The kitchen is almost totally unusable, with cabinets too high and a sink that cannot be used by a person in a wheelchair. As the baby boomers retire, many are renting units designed for the disabled even though they do not need adapted units.
I hope the city planners will incorporate more disabled housing for those of us using wheelchairs in any future developments.
John Poirier