Funding Appears to Be in Place for Second Grade-Separated Crossing – Davis’ City Staff is recommending the council approve the Cannery Development Agreement, an agreement that several members of the council have expressed serious concerns about.
“Staff recommends approval of the Development Agreement as presented. The Development Agreement provides funding assurance during the early years of the urban farm and contributes to other community needs, including connectivity, civic arts, sustainability, and parks,” staff writes. “Staff has concluded that the recommended package meets the Council objective of recognizing that the Development Agreement requires mutual considerations and agreement by both the City and the applicant.”
On Tuesday, the council will have a brief presentation, take public comment, and have additional questions from the councilmembers. At that point, staff is recommending “that the City Council continue its deliberations and approve the applications, including certification of the EIR, adoption of findings of overriding circumstances, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, at its meeting of November 19, 2013.”
But it seems there is a lot of ground to cover between now and then.
There is an odd flavor to this, as the council had previously appointed a subcommittee of Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Frerichs to provide guidance to staff on a possible Development Agreement for the project.
Odd because Mayor Krovoza has been particularly vocal about the fact that, without a second grade-separated crossing, he will not be supporting the development and yet, in the current agreement, there is only agreement for intersection improvements at Covell and J St and a grade-separated bike and pedestrian crossing at the southwest corner of the site.
While Councilmember Lucas Frerichs has been less publicly vocal, it is far from clear that he will support the project at this point either.
That said, it looks like there will be funding available for a second grade-separated crossing. According to staff, “The funds from the Development Agreement, combined with the project-specific obligations and the transportation impact fees, will generate approximately $11 million for transportation and circulation improvements on and around the Covell Boulevard corridor as well as a minimum of $2,475,000 in other non-transportation related community enhancements.”
Staff adds, “This will provide the resources 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.”
Staff contracted with Andy Plescia to “review project economics and provide input on the general financial ability of the project to support potential costs and/or financial contributions requested in the context of the Development Agreement.”
The report includes assumptions on project costs and revenues, along with an economic analysis. “Using this economic analysis, staff has concluded that the Development Agreement could accommodate $4 – $4.5 million in benefits to the City under current assumptions,” staff writes.
Still, there are other concerns that threaten the project as well. Community members have raised the concern that just nine percent of the trees on the site will be retained and some have put the number at 900 trees that would be removed.
At the same time, the project will be planting about 4100 trees. This includes public and private trees. Of those, about 2400 trees will be planted on public lands.
Dr. Greg McPherson is a Davis resident who works with the USDA Forest Service believes, “The good news is that many of these are healthy, mature trees that can be preserved without sacrificing dwelling units. Trees along the western boundary provide a natural buffer that screens the railroad tracks. Trees along the eastern boundary can be thinned to provide light to the gardens while retaining the mature valley oaks and cedars. Some of the best specimens along the southern boundary can be incorporated in the design, so that their shade reduces summer air temperatures and saves energy.”
According to staff, “The Cannery will likely result in removal of many of the trees on the site.” They add, “The City’s Urban Forest Manager has noted that the extent of the fill necessary for grading the Cannery site means that many, if not all, of the existing mature oaks will not survive. Many of the trees are not healthy, or would present potential safety risks if they were preserved in public areas.”
Staff does note, “Staff and the applicant have continued to explore options for preserving existing trees on the site. The City Arborist has walked the site and identified 38 additional trees, primarily along the perimeter, that are suitable for retention.”
They add, “Final decision on these and other trees will be made with improvement drawings.”
Staff notes that the EIR “identified development outside the City’s desired five-minute fire response time as a significant and unavoidable impact.”
Staff writes, “The City Council has authorized public safety staff to explore options for a new (relocated) fire station in north Davis. If approved and built, such a station would improve response times to subdivisions such as Northstar, Wildhorse, and the Cannery.”
“Funding has been identified through Mello-Roos proceeds and development impact fees. The concept is scheduled to return to the City Council in January 2014. Construction and occupancy could potentially occur as early as the last quarter of 2015,” staff adds.
The bottom line here is that it appears that the city has solved the second grade-separated crossing issue, using obligations from the developers along with transportation impact fees that would offer the opportunity for improvements to the H Street tunnel and a second grade-separated crossing at Covell Blvd.
However, the tree issue may be more significant than first believed – especially with the expressed view of the city’s arborist that only 38 additional trees could be retained.
This analysis does not touch on two other potential impacts. First, there is the impact of the $2 million donation from ConAgra to Capitol Corridor Ventures. It appears that ConAgra will be able to fund most of what the transportation community has been advocating. However, questions still remain about this deal below the surface.
Finally is the 800-pound gorilla in the room – the specter of an election. Clearly, the connectivity issue will take some steam out of the opposition, but there are plenty of other concerns. We will have to see what develops.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
Your analysis did not include my two major points of concern, health and safety.
I am still awaiting any word from anyone about the contents of the north-south rail cars on the west side of the development and evacuation times. The EIR does not appear to contain this information. I have posed this question to each of the city council members with responses of, paraphrasing, I don’t know but will take that into consideration. For me, no answer to that questions should equal a no vote until answered.
My concerns about the basically unhealthy, automobile dependent, travel pattern that will be engendered by
this community as currently designed with our current transportation system are not going to be mitigated by the kind of improved connectivity that we are seeing proposed.
I do not see health and safety as “goodies” or “amenities”. I believe that we should be incorporating these as the building blocks for any proposed community. I do not believe that this has been the case with the Cannery proposal.
If you want to write something on your concerns for Monday or Tuesday?
Time will tell. rdcanning tells me that we are already scheduled to hang out with some fascinating and inspiring people tonight ; )
[i]They add, “Final decision on these and other trees will be made with improvement drawings.”[/i]
Interesting – What other “final decisions” have not been made. And yet the City Council will be asked to give their stamp of approval?
[quote]”The City Council has authorized public safety staff to explore options for a new (relocated) fire station in north Davis. If approved and built, such a station would improve response times to subdivisions such as Northstar, Wildhorse, and the Cannery.”[/quote]
Is it new, or is it relocated? Would there be long-term increased costs to the city due to this station, or is it a wash?
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Your analysis did not include my two major points of concern, health and safety.
I am still awaiting any word from anyone about the contents of the north-south rail cars on the west side of the development and evacuation times. The EIR does not appear to contain this information. I have posed this question to each of the city council members with responses of, paraphrasing, I don’t know but will take that into consideration. For me, no answer to that questions should equal a no vote until answered.”[/i]
Help me understand this concern medwoman. What I am hearing you saying is that you are concerned about the safety risk associated with the freight rail cars that proceed north or south past the Cannery site several times a day. Is that correct?
medwoman said . . .
[i]”My concerns about the basically unhealthy, automobile dependent, travel pattern that will be engendered by
this community as currently designed with our current transportation system are not going to be mitigated by the kind of improved connectivity that we are seeing proposed.”[/i]
You have been consistent with respect to tis concern, and I wonder if what you are really saying is that the site is [u]fatally flawed for all urbanization uses[/u] as long as it is constrained by the railroad on one side and the current policy positions of North Davis Land Company on two other sides. Is that correct?
So the mayor demands a second crossing and Davis Bikes demand a second crossing and they get it. Congratulations are in order for the excellent negotiating by the City manager to get Conagra to meet the demands of the elected officials representing the community.
Now its the trees standing in the way but we are saving 20% up from 9% and possibly more when detailed drawings are completed. You may not like 20% retention plus a responsible mitigation effort but you can’t say these guys are not responding.
It seems they have done their best to respond to as many concerns as possible; solar panels, ADA compliance, housing type mixture, second bike crossing, tree retention and mitigation, yet here is Medwoman expressing discontent over some vague health concerns. Maybe we should demand that the people who live there are non-smoking vegans who exercise four times a week. At the same time David wonders if the veiled threats of referendum will come to fruition. I am left wondering if it will ever be enough.
David has been arguing that opponents need to be at the table. Here we have a situation where there has been a transparent and responsive planning process and yet you still have this opposition. If anything this is why those opposed to everything should not be invited to participate because there is no way these people will ever get to yes. The process should include enough of those willing to get to yes to overcome the conservatives that think the world should be frozen in time who will never come along and accept that Davis should be the dynamic, robust, leading and innovative community that awaits its future.
[quote]It seems they have done their best to respond to as many concerns as possible; solar panels, ADA compliance, housing type mixture, second bike crossing, tree retention and mitigation, yet here is Medwoman expressing discontent over some vague health concerns.[/quote]
All of these things should have been included in the developer plans from the beginning, instead of being issues we need to fight for.
Matt
[quote]What I am hearing you saying is that you are concerned about the safety risk associated with the freight rail cars that proceed north or south past the Cannery site several times a day. Is that correct? [/quote]
This is correct. And I will be more specific. I would be much less concerned ( not enough to oppose the project on these grounds) if two questions were answered favorably.
1) Do the freight cars on the north-south route ever carry toxic or combustible substances ?
2) Are there standards that are established for timely evacuation of the population of a given area should a major environmental crisis occur, such as I posted on a previous thread ? If these standards exist, does this project meet them ?
These are not flighty or selfish concerns. I am never going to live there. But public health and wellness which includes safety is a major concern of mine. The safety experts on the city staff should be able to get this information and provide it to the council members without difficulty if such data exists.
If the answer to either of the above is that there is no danger since these substances never travel this route or because we have addressed that and can demonstrate that our project meets established standards, then I would be happy to say it is no longer a concern. If the answer to either is “we don’t know” or ” we aren’t worried about that, then my answer is ” Well, I am. And I believe that every member of our CC should be too.”
Matt
[quote]You have been consistent with respect to tis concern, and I wonder if what you are really saying is that the site is fatally flawed for all urbanization uses as long as it is constrained by the railroad on one side and the current policy positions of North Davis Land Company on two other sides. Is that correct?[/quote]
I do believe that this a flawed site. I would not use the word fatally. I think that there could be a development that might meet the needs of our community that would be more compatible with this area, and I expressed those concerns at the first planning meeting that I attended a couple of years ago. Those concerns were basically brushed aside and have been ever since. Those concerns centered on my belief that our town does not really need more homes in the $500,000 dollar range. I understand that those concerns do reflect my desire for the provision of more compact, lower income housing. This is a personal preference and I completely understand that my values are not universally shared. I know that in a collaborative community process I will win some ( such as the surface water project ) and lose some ( such as water fluoridation ).This is the nature of compromise. What should never be compromised is safety. This is not a matter of personal preference. This should be a deal breaker if the safety of the residents of the community is not ensured. If the residents are guaranteed a situation that meets all accepted safety standards, I would happily stand down on this issue. If this is not guaranteed, then I strongly feel that it would be irresponsible for any council member to vote in favor of this development with the potential for the creation of a new and dangerous situation for the approximate 1,500 inhabitants of this community.
3 questions:
1. Is approval of the Cannery necessary for the city to meet its SACOG growth requirement?
2. Is approval of the Cannery consistent with the city’s 1% growth cap?
3. Is the $100k+ net drain on the city around Year 18 an acceptable price to pay for the benefits received?
I don’t know the answers to 1 and 2. The answer to 3 is subjective, but ought to be something everyone is aware of.
Having read through the development agreement, I don’t think that the tree situation appears solvable on site. If there are significant grade changes, especially lots of fill, the impact on the Valley oaks will be very detrimental. So the question remains as to whether the mitigation they are proposing is reasonable.
Unfortunately, I could not discern exactly [i]how [/i]they are providing mitigation: what total fees, or planted trees, or combination of those, is being required by the City. If someone can figure out, basically, how much they’re paying [i]per tree removed[/i], it would be easier to assess whether the city negotiated a good deal on this.
All of that assumes that it is acceptable to remove a large number of mature trees in the first place. My guess is that avoiding that would require significant re-design of the project. But I’m only going on what I read in the development agreement.
“If anything this is why those opposed to everything should not be invited to participate”
who involved at this point is against everything? the tree issue just came up. we’ll see whether resolving the access issue is enough to get krovoza or frerichs on board. no really seeing the crisis here.
“
All of these things should have been included in the developer plans from the beginning, instead of being issues we need to fight for.”
i can’ see from the developer’s perspective the need to hold stuff back.
“3. Is the $100k+ net drain on the city around Year 18 an acceptable price to pay for the benefits received?”
at some point housing stock deteriorates and will become a net drain on city resources, but getting 17 years in the plus column seems reasonable.
[quote]
I am still awaiting any word from anyone about the contents of the north-south rail cars on the west side of the development[/quote]
There are only 2-4 loaded trains per day on the N-S line (as opposed to roughtly 20-24 or so on the E-W line). The E-W line regularly carries liquified petroleum gas, unrefined oil and a variety of non- to extremely-toxic chemicals. Oil movement will likely increase as Canadian tar sand extracts are imported for refinement in the Bay Area.
Most of what runs N-S is more benign as a percentage of total freight carried (heavy on wood and grain). Tank cars of fertilizer, propane and other chemicals do move on the line. However, adjacent to the Cannery there are no junctions, trains do not park, and they move at low speeds.
Overall shipping safety rates are high moving hazardous substances by rail. The risk is far greater, however, to those near the E-W mainline (in terms of freight volume, percentage of freight, and track infrastructure), such as the south end of Old East Davis, the north side of Olive Drive, or the SE corner of downtown.
[quote] can’ see from the developer’s perspective the need to hold stuff back.[/quote]
I can too, which makes the whole process that much more unpalatable. We shouldn’t have to bargain over some of these issues, they should be standard operating procedure. I am grateful to those who have stood up and fought, I just wish they didn’t have too.
Alan Miller
Thanks for providing the information Alan. This was what I was looking for and it removes this safety issue from my list of concerns. I still do not feel that this project is a good design, and I do not believe it is needed or in keeping with the city’s stated environmental and affordable housing goals. But this now becomes one of those, “you lose a few” since I would not be willing to go to the mat for a simple difference of opinion while I would for a safety issue.
Is there reason to believe that oil moved by rail from Canada will go to our Bay Area Refineries? I have not heard that.
Yes. At least there was an article in the NYT on October 30th stating a Benicia refinery delayed issue a permit for processing of oil from Canada. I do not know the details as I have not bee following this issue closely.
[quote]at some point housing stock deteriorates and will become a net drain on city resources, but getting 17 years in the plus column seems reasonable. [/quote]
Deterioration of infrastructure is only one component, and it may be insignificant. I expect that the big driver is Prop 13: staffing costs rise at market rates, but property taxes don’t. The deficit that comes in around year 18 keeps getting bigger.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”This is correct. And I will be more specific. I would be much less concerned ( not enough to oppose the project on these grounds) if two questions were answered favorably.
1) Do the freight cars on the north-south route ever carry toxic or combustible substances ?
2) Are there standards that are established for timely evacuation of the population of a given area should a major environmental crisis occur, such as I posted on a previous thread ? If these standards exist, does this project meet them ?
These are not flighty or selfish concerns. I am never going to live there. But public health and wellness which includes safety is a major concern of mine. The safety experts on the city staff should be able to get this information and provide it to the council members without difficulty if such data exists.
If the answer to either of the above is that there is no danger since these substances never travel this route or because we have addressed that and can demonstrate that our project meets established standards, then I would be happy to say it is no longer a concern. If the answer to either is “we don’t know” or ” we aren’t worried about that, then my answer is ” Well, I am. And I believe that every member of our CC should be too.”[/i]
medwoman, thank you for the very clear answer. I will answer you from the best of my knowledge, as a citizen who has taken an avtive interest in that rail line over the past five years, but my understanding is not KNOWLEDGE, so please take it with a grain of salt. With that said, when you use the expressions “ever carry” and “never travel” which are quite absolute, my suspicion is that the rail traffic does not meet those absolute standards. However, personal experience over the 15 years that I have lived in Davis and driven down Second Street tells me that I can not remember a single instance when the rail cars parked on the two tracks closest to Second Street have included any cars that either were marked with flammable placards or appeared to be cars that would carry flammables. Since all the cars that go north on the rail line on the west side of the Cannery site pause for varying amounts of time on the Second Street outer tracks, I think it is safe to say that flammables rarely (if ever) use those north-south rails.
Compare that experience/observation/conclusion with the much less frequent number of times that I have exited CA 113 onto Main Street in Woodland and driven past numerous rail cars that clearly are marked as flammable or have the appearance of being rail cars that carry flammables. Those cars arrive in Woodland on an entirely different rail line, which goes north from West Sac to Elkhorn, then across the Yolo Bypass and along Main Street until they end at the PCP tomato packing facility just east of the corner or East Street and Main Street. I bring that (somewhat extraneous) information up, only to demonstrate that I know a flammable carrying rail car when I see one.
Cars carrying toxic materials are a bit harder to identify, but my suspicion is that their activity is similarly rare.
The real meat of your question is in the evacuation procedures compliance. That is a question that I think it is best for Mike Webb to answer.
medwoman, I see that Alan Miller has provided a much more succinct answer to your question. I’m glad he was able to do so, and he is much closer to the transportation industry than I am.
It looks like any risky shipments of Canadian would be a bigger problem for developing PG&E than Cannery as a Plan by Canadian Pacific and union Pacific would move much more oil on the tracks along I-80 than along the North-South line next to Cannery.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/management/cp-and-up-forge-canada-to-california-cbr-corridor.html
A lot for sale behind my business on E street between 5th and 4th just had several mature trees removed. I just removed two mature trees from my yard to replace with other landscaping.
So why the crocodile tears over some trees and not others?
Valley oaks are endemic to much of CA and not an endangered species. They are on a state “watch list” but because of southern CA… primarily Ventura county. And let’s not get too excited about the watch list… it does not take much for the environmental extremists in this state to put something on THAT list.
It sounds like more manufactured outrage from those looking for anything and everything they can to block any and all growth.
How about we put Davis’s housing supply and its economic problems on a watch list?
ConAgra is just lucky Yolo County doesn’t have a strict oak ordinance: [url]http://ucanr.edu/sites/oak_range/Description_of_County_Oak_Conservation_Policies/[/url]
Frankly
[quote]So why the crocodile tears over some trees and not others?
[/quote]
Because some trees have community impact, others, not so much so.
This is quite a perplexing question coming from you. I am sure that you can understand the difference between trees that are located on your private property which I presume that you are not asking the city to rezone for your benefit, and those over whose fate the community has at least some leverage.
Actually, this comment is very timely. I was recently speaking with a friend who had been contemplating taking down a couple of trees in her yard. She decided not to because she was aware of the benefit to her neighbor and her neighbor’s children from the shade of the two mature trees which provide a great play spot for them during the hot days. This, to me, is an excellent example of community spirit with consideration of the benefit for all involved, even on private property.
“difference between trees that are located on your private property which I presume that you are not asking the city to rezone for your benefit, and those over whose fate the community has at least some leverage. “
What is the difference? Both are private property and both owners seek beneficial use for their own objectives. The only difference is in one case there is community leverage because one owner seeks a rezoning. In other words it matters only because it can and so, for those whose true goal is obstruction no obstacle is too small to exploit and no mitigation will ever be enough.
The trees have value that can be identified within a range based on accepted standards of the professional society of those who do that for a living (ISA). This is easy to quantify. The question is whether that got done in a manner that reflects the value those trees provided to the community, or whether it was just an afterthought in staff’s project review process. Community development staff tend not to have the appropriate expertise for this, and developers will nearly always seek to remove trees rather than protect them. So again, the question is whether the proposed mitigation is reasonable in terms of replacing the trees’ value.
[i]Because some trees have community impact, others, not so much so.
This is quite a perplexing question coming from you. I am sure that you can understand the difference between trees that are located on your private property which I presume that you are not asking the city to rezone for your benefit, and those over whose fate the community has at least some leverage. [/i]
It is not my property. It is a lot behind me and one over to the south. The trees removed had actually mitigated the views into my upstairs office and are what I would look at while contemplating how I should respond to your posts. Now they are gone and I am more visible from the street behind me. There are a couple more trees in the neighbor’s property directly behind me. Those still provide some view mitigation and allow me to still stare at some branches and leaves out my window.
But here is the thing. Those trees are on land owned by others. They have the right to use their land and decide what trees they need to remove, but within city codes. I have no right to demand they keep trees if it impacts their plans or causes them any material difficulty.
I have mature neighbor trees preventing me from installing solar panels on my business roof. By topping those trees, it would endanger their health (already checked with experts), so I will not even think of asking them to allow me to pay to have them topped.
I think a fundamental difference I see with some Davisites is a level of entitlement that we can control anything and everything about the use of land not owned by us, and force the TRUE owner of the property to bend to our will. Conversely, I believe land ownership should come with rights of the owner.
Bottom line is that I think we are out of balance demanding what a land owner has to do with the trees on the land if doing so would cause him material difficulties.
“Bottom line is that I think we are out of balance demanding what a land owner has to do with the trees on the land if doing so would cause him material difficulties.”
This is my fundamental problem with capitalism, (and a good example of why we need all those cumbersome government regulations.) Decisions are based solely on dollar amounts. If saving a tree is feasible but going to cost extra and dent in profit margins just cut it down. Basing decisions on how much more money a small number of people can make rarely leads to good things for the majority of people effected by the outcome.
[quote]
I have mature neighbor trees preventing me from installing solar panels on my business roof. By topping those trees, it would endanger their health (already checked with experts), so I will not even think of asking them to allow me to pay to have them topped. [/quote]
Courts address these issues all the time. The value of the trees may be, especially in close property situations, be negated somewhat by the impact of the trees on other uses. Roots disturbing the neighbor’s landscape, shade preventing solar access, branches overhanging structures. In those situations it comes down to dollars and cents. it is very quantifiable, because we have systems for measuring these things.
“This is my fundamental problem with capitalism, (and a good example of why we need all those cumbersome government regulations.) Decisions are based solely on dollar amounts.”
Actually they are not made solely on monetary calculations. If that were true there would be one bike crossing and no solar panels as just two examples. Anyway, whatever system you would prefer we must live with the system we have, a system where quantifying value helps make decisions. I’m all for saving as many trees as is reasonable and mitigating for the rest. How would you decide how the mitigation should occur? If you have a different way of doing it I’d be interested in hearing it.
Don keeps questioning how the trees are being valued although he seems to not know if the mitigation being offered is of a reasonable value. My guess is that the solar panels alone will more than mitigate for the CO2 fixation loss and shade loss.
[quote]How would you decide how the mitigation should occur? If you have a different way of doing it I’d be interested in hearing it. [/quote]
Pay an arborist to assess the value of the trees. Replace as many as possible on site. Pay the difference between the arborist’s assessed value and the cost of the (much smaller) new trees into a fund that is dedicated to tree planting and maintenance in the city’s urban forest. That could be to provide for new trees elsewhere in the city. Or a grant to a tree foundation that plants and establishes trees.
It’s a matter of dollars. My guess is the value of the trees is much higher than the cost they are expending to mitigate. It is a little frustrating that I can’t determine that from the report that will be presented to the council in the form of the Development Agreement. If I can’t figure it out, I doubt if the council members can, unless they’re privy to something that isn’t attached to the agenda.
It wouldn’t surprise me if staff was allowing them to count trees they’d already be planting anyway, as part of their new landscaping, as counting toward their mitigation. As I said before, it sounds as though they can’t really save very many of the trees. If they are doing a lot of regrading or filling, that’s an unfortunate reality. It doesn’t, to me, argue against approval of the project. It just means that it is appropriate for the loss of mature, healthy trees of desirable species to be fairly compensated or mitigated. It isn’t clear if that has been done. I urge the council members to tighten this up if they decide to go forward with the Cannery project.
[quote] I’m all for saving as many trees as is reasonable and mitigating for the rest. How would you decide how the mitigation should occur? If you have a different way of doing it I’d be interested in hearing it. [/quote]
Don addressed the mitigation for trees that have to go. I’m thinking about the tree’s that don’t have to go, but the developer is planning to take out for convenience reasons. I got the impression that there are a significant number in this category.
They started at 9% retention and are up to 20% retention and they may save even more.
[quote]They started at 9% retention and are up to 20% retention and they may save even more.[/quote]
I know Rochelle addressed this issue at the last council meeting and asked for a reevaluation of the developers plan so hopefully her concerns will be addressed and any unnecessary tree removal can be avoided.