By Matt Williams
Before a standing room only crowd, the Cannery hearing kicked into gear at 7:40 with a presentation by Mike Webb that “focused on public testimony” and that would include focused elements covering the EIR, Traffic and the plans for the Covell Corridor.
Based on the size of the crowd, I was expecting lots of entertaining fireworks as the evening progressed. When the dust settled; however, there was indeed plenty of entertainment, but all the fireworks had been defused.
After a brief overview of the project (reviewed in detail at the October 22nd Council workshop), Mike stepped though the many and varied recommendations of the Commissions that reviewed the project., noting:
- The two public reviews in March by the Senior Citizens Commission focusing on the extensive incorporation of universal design in the project;
- The public review in March by the Natural Resources Commission focusing on the elimination of wood burning fireplaces , energy sustainability and transportation connectivity;
- The public review in April by the Bicycle Advisory Commission focusing on the two key needs, first, for a second grade separated crossing connecting to the southeast corner of the property, and second, for the current underpass at the southwest corner to continue directly south between the railroad right of way and the apartments to the existing H Street Tunnel as the preferred route;
- The public review in April of the Open Space and Habitat Commission focused on the Urban Farm, the native plantings and native pollinator opportunities in the drainage areas;
- The public review in April of the Social Services Commission focused on affordable housing, livable design / universal access, and the location of the project on the edge of the City that can cater to multi-generational needs of the community;
- The public review in April of the Recreation and Parks Commission focused on park amenities within the project, such as turf management and lighting;
- The public review in April of the Business and Economic Development Commission focused on how the Mixed Use Area meets the City’s objectives for flexible commercial space, as well as the provision of workforce housing that would help with the City’s jobs/housing balance;
- The public review in May of the Tree Commission focused on compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Mike noted that there was a more focused discussion of this topic later in the Staff’s presentation to Council reflecting the more recent developments with respect to trees) especially with regard to proper mitigation for trees removed from the site;
- The public review in September by the Finance and Budget Commission of the fiscal analysis of the project prepared by Staff using the City’s new project analysis model; and
- The many public reviews conducted by the Planning Commission through the life of the project, starting with the EIR review in March and the three public workshops in September and October. Mike singled out the Planning Commission recommendations regarding trees, small builder provisions, universal design, the Covell Corridor Plan and the project’s relationship to that plan, and bicycle connectivity.
Mike then reviewed the Development Agreement Provisions, and it was here that the audience saw the first indication that some of the expected fireworks would never go off. Specifically, (A) the incorporation of provisions for small builders, (B) the energy sustainability commitments (1.5 kW of solar on all the single family homes and a commitment that no less than 25% of those single family homes will be Net Zero Electricity), and (C) most importantly the clear commitment of $3.75 million of transportation funds toward the Covell Corridor (which would address the second grade separated crossing connecting to the southeast corner of the property).
However, the biggest fireworks defuser came by a joint announcement by Mary Jo Bryan from Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) and Ashley Feeney from the New Home Company that they had mutually agreed (earlier in the day) that New Home would add a single story design option for selection by individual lot buyers. They were clear to say that the specific design(s) have not been completed given the recentness of the agreement in principle, but that CHA and New Home would be working actively on the design(s) shortly.
With that announcement, everyone in the room knew that there really weren’t going to be any fireworks after all. 45 people stayed to make public comment on a variety of subjects, but the issue of single story home availability was not one of them.
In tomorrow’s article I will review in detail the final accommodations that New Home and ConAgra brought to the table to address all the community concerns that were brought forward as a result of the thorough public review process.
Thanks Matt for the update.
Excellent news. That is way to work it. Allow time for all the demands to filter in and be vetted, and then at the last minute hit it out of the park.
I seriously hope the no-growthers are not currently meeting in their secret backrooms furiously searching for something else they can use to manufacture outrage and gin up opposition to the project. It sounds like we have a very good development project on the table at this point, and we need to make it so.
you know this is going on the ballot right?
I watched and heard nothing about ballot; please clarify!
no reason you would have heard it going on the ballot – the council is not the ones who are going to put it there. like to hear from harrington and hart.
I doubt this will be on the ballot. If you watched the hearing there were only a few of the usual suspects opposed yet a great many speaking in favor. There were teachers looking to move to the town they teach in. There were family members wishing there were better housing choices in town for their children, parents, brothers and sisters. Young people who grew up here that can no longer afford to stay here and raise their own children. Parents lamenting their children can’t afford to stay here and seniors looking to downsize. All were hopeful that this project might help them in their personal situations. I felt sorry for all of them. They were truly a sympathetic lot. What became apparent is how much pent up demand there is for housing. I honestly can’t understand the indifference of the anti-development faction of the community.
“What became apparent is how much pent up demand there is for housing. I honestly can’t understand the indifference of the anti-development faction of the community.”
the indifference as you call is the difference between those who see the pent up demand as the driving force versus those who have other considerations.
Such as?
Shout. Shout. Let it all out. These are the things I can do without. Come on, I’m talking to you. Come on.
“…only a few of the usual suspects opposed …”
We’ll see about that.
Matt Williams does a good job summarizing the tremendous work of the commissions and commissions who took their public duty seriously and improved a fairly ordinary project, that could have been dumped into any community, better. The many hours they spent basically saved the developer a great deal of money in hiring experts to the work they should have done in the first place before their plan was submitted to [u]this [/u]city. Thank goodness we have those commissions and dedicated people and experts on them. Even so, it still is taking extra work and comment by the public to be sure that more trees are retained, to have the connectivity and bike access improved, to recalculate the estimated housing costs, and review verbs/wording so that there is uniformity of intent expressed in different uses of “will,” “shall,” and “must,” through out the text in regard to binding obligations, and more.
There was move in the past to eliminate or merge commissions for various reasons, including staffing and cost. This example of how the commission’s and the public’s work made an ordinary project better, should be sufficient evidence that we need these commissions.
“With that announcement, everyone in the room knew that there really weren’t going to be any fireworks after all.”
Then all those folks in that room have nothing to fear by putting it on the ballot for all of Davis’ citizens.
I wholeheartedly agree with Nancy Price’s assessment. This process is a textbook example of how the Commissions work effectively in concert with one another, and cause the various parts of City Staff to overcome the negative inertia in the City’s governmental processes that comes from what I have referred to in the past as “silo-ism”
I could be wrong, but Silo-ism appears to be the historical default behavior pattern. Given the across the board budget cuts and the decreased staffing throughout City departments that is very understandable. However, understandable as it may be, it is often very undesirable and often very expensive for both the City and the taxpayers/ratepayers. I don’t see it as a flaw in the Commission structure or the functioning of individual Commissions, but rather an absence of mutual outreach between the Staff liaisons that support the various Commissions. Perhaps what we need is an Ombudsman . . . someone fulfilling an expanded version of the function that Scott Kenley recently fulfilled with respect to Fire Department issues and Bob Aaronson serves for the Police Department as that department’s Independent Police Auditor / Ombudsman.
“There were family members wishing there were better housing choices in town for their children, parents, brothers and sisters.”
Extremely expensive housing. Not housing for people making minimum wage.
Oh, wait. Move those folks to Woodland & West Sac. Let them work at the frozen yogurt and pizza places, but please don’t let them live in our village. We need more “professionals”.
JimmysDaughter said . . .
[i]”Then all those folks in that room have nothing to fear by putting it on the ballot for all of Davis’ citizens.”[/i]
I wholeheartedly agree with your bottom-line JD. The question for me is what a simple Return On Investment analysis of the cost/benefit of such a ballot is. There is clear expense associated with such a ballot. I don’t know how much the Measure I ballot cost the City, but someone who knows will probably share that amount. The following quote from an April article in the Daily Democrat indicates that that cost was in the ball park of $150,000. [i]”The recent Measure I election held in March for example, in which Davis residents passed the Woodland-Davis Surface Water Project in a special mail-in only ballot, cost upward of $150,000″[/i]
Do you think it is a good investment of $150,000 to conduct an election in March 2014 if the outcome of that election is the “no fear” result you describe?
The Referendum signature threshold for Davis is approximately 3,787, which is 15% of the 25,252, the number of votes cast in the last Gubernatorial election on November 2, 2010. Does it make sense to go through a signature gathering process in advance of any election decision?
Those are questions that I rattle around in my brain when I wrestle with the issues that your statement raises.
A man spoke about his dream of buying a house here to raise his children. Both he and his wife are teachers in our community.
“Let them work at the frozen yogurt and pizza places, but please don’t let them live in our village.”
Shocking.
“We’ll see about that.”
We saw about that. The voice of the community that turned out last night was overwhelmingly supportive of the project. If you wanted to block this last night was the opportunity to make your voice heard.
I was being sarcastic. How many people who work at frozen yogurt places and pizza places can afford to live in Davis?
“If you wanted to block this last night was the opportunity to make your voice heard.”
I am making my voice heard in this very public written forum, The People’s Vanguard. There is more than one way to voice an opinion. I may also voice my concerns by emailing the city council.
“Return On Investment analysis of the cost/benefit of such a ballot is. There is clear expense associated with such a ballot.”
If certain people are so concerned about expenses, why is Davis building more uber expensive homes? Homes that will need sidewalks, cops, firefighters, water, power grids, library books, bike paths, parks, middle income teachers, garbage disposal, recycling pick up, etc? Homes that don’t even have a safe evacuation plan?
“If certain people are so concerned about expenses, why is Davis building more uber expensive homes? Homes that will need sidewalks, cops, firefighters, water, power grids, library books, bike paths, parks, middle income teachers, garbage disposal, recycling pick up, etc?”
Are you still being sarcastic? Imagine trying to build homes without these amenities in Davis.
“Homes that don’t even have a safe evacuation plan?”
Safe evacuation from what threat, an urban forest fire?
[quote]The many hours they spent basically saved the developer a great deal of money in hiring experts to the work they should have done in the first place before their plan was submitted to this city.[/quote]
I agree, we shouldn’t need committees to fight for connectivity, trees, urban farms, low-income housing, and senior housing. That being said, I’m grateful for everyone’s hard work and tenacity, and the developers willingness to comply. For the sake of everyone who worked so hard I hope this development goes through (especially if we can get the bike access and save some more trees). I’m tempted to put my house on the market and head to the north side of town….
Why can’t there be an exit onto F St on the North/East end? Was it noise associated with a railroad crossing?
Sorry above comments was meant for a different thread.
Mr. Toad
[quote]What became apparent is how much pent up demand there is for housing. I honestly can’t understand the indifference of the anti-development faction of the community.[/quote]
Your first sentence, I agree with. However, what you are hearing from the “anti-developement” faction is not indifference and your lack of understanding may be because you are not actually listening to what is being said.
1) Do you think it is indifferent to argue for a larger affordable housing component to the project?
How many teachers or young families do you know that can afford $500,000 for a house.
2) Do you think it is indifferent to argue for better “aging in place” features as were apparently attained only
at the last moment in a collaboration between those making the request and the developers.
3) Do you think it is indifferent to argue for more environmentally favorable features in a town that claims environmental protection as one of its hallmarks ? Is it indifferent to make a plea for preservation of as many of the existing tress as possible ?
4) Do you think it is indifferent to be looking out for the connectivity of the community and safety of those who prefer transportation other than the automobile and may not be the most experienced bicyclists ?
5) Do you think it is indifferent to care about the potential future safety of the residents of a community that has not yet been built ?
I was there for the entirety of the public comment at the City Council meeting. I heard only two speakers who came out in actual opposition to the project. My opposition was provisional pending the assurance of safety.
Anyone who claims that their concern is for the well being of these families would certainly also care about their safety, no ? The remainder of the folks who did not speak actively in favor of the project had specific items that were suggestions for improvement, not for blockage of the project. What is hard for me to understand is how you cannot seem to appreciate a difference between the two.
Medwoman wrote:
> 1) Do you think it is indifferent to argue for a larger
> affordable housing component to the project?
New homes and apartments are expensive and you can help many more poor people by giving them cash to rent older less expensive homes and apartments. If you really want to help the poor you will give the poor (or force a developer to give the poor) money for housing, if you just want to ‘F with a developer you will make them build a mini Cabrini-Green (like Davis did to the Wildhorse and El Macero Estates developers).
> How many teachers or young families do you know that
> can afford $500,000 for a house.
All the teachers and young families (with two incomes) I know will have no problem buying a $500K home. With a 10% down payment a $500K home mortgage payment will be about $2,300/month (less than the cost to RENT a three bedroom APARTMENT in the West Village).
> 5) Do you think it is indifferent to care about the
> potential future safety of the residents of a community
> that has not yet been built ?
Can you name a single incident where someone died (or was even hurt) in a housing development in a city surounded by farmland due to only having exits on one side? As Mr. Toad points out we don’t have “urban forest fires” (that would kill everyone in Ivy Town before crossing Covell and traping everyone in the Cannery)…
“
Can you name a single incident where someone died (or was even hurt) in a housing development in a city surounded by farmland due to only having exits on one side? “
Is that really the standard for action?
I asked:
> Can you name a single incident where someone died
> (or was even hurt) in a housing development in a
> city surrounded by farmland due to only having exits
> on one side?
Then David wrote:
> Is that really the standard for action?
I can see where someone would want to ask the developer to make the roofs of the home stronger to protect residents from “space debris” since it looks like ONE (1) person in the history of the US has been hit by it (see below).
I just don’t get bringing up the “safety” of the Cannery design where as far as I can tell that ZERO (0) people have been killed (or even injured) due to being “trapped” in an urban housing development with exits on one side (and farmland on the other)
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/21/woman-gets-hit-by-space-junk-lives-to-tell-tale/