By Matt Williams
With the exception of Mike Hart, who used public comment twice during the evening to make the same argument he has frequently made here in the Vanguard (a passionate plea for using the Cannery site for an Innovation Park rather than for housing), and Mayor Krovoza, who strongly argued for an additional $1,150,000 of concessions from the project applicant at the very end of the meeting, everyone who spoke in Council Chambers supported the project. After a short delay as Mayor Krovoza’s substitute motion for the additional concessions was discussed and then voted down by a 1-4 tally, the final vote approving the Cannery was entered into the ledger as 3-2, with Brett Lee entering a message vote as follows:
I feel that the project applicant has been very thoughtful and very responsive, and the project has made dramatic improvements over the past three months. Further, I don’t want to be a wet blanket, but because there are clearly three votes in support, I want my vote to say that I believe the project could be even better if there were more moderately priced homes (below $400,000) and if the project also was also a net zero energy community like West Village. Unfortunately, right now it isn’t quite there. If it were, it would be a regional/national draw. So I am voting NO to remind people “how close we were to the great.”
Mayor Krovoza was the second no vote.
And with that, at just after Midnight, the long nine-year journey of the Cannery application went quietly into the night, and to a round of beers at Froggy’s Tavern.
The Last Chance to Comment
Since last night’s hearing was everyone’s final opportunity to comment on Cannery there were some quite interesting comments from both citizens and Council members. Here are a selection of those comments.
Mike Hart – President of Sierra Energy – Innovation needs low cost – Housing doesn’t move the ball forward for the City financially – Why not make the Cannery into an Innovation Park – Cheap property with already existing utilities – Tell ConAgra no.
Mary Jo Bryan – Very pleased with win-win agreement for single story homes with universal accessibility for those seniors who choose to buy them
John Poulos – Member of CHA and husband of Deborah Nichols Poulos – Congratulations to New Home Company who really listened to the needs of seniors – The project should be approved.
Kara Lynn Penny – Supports the project – As a teacher the possibility to own a home in Davis is a huge plus
Carol Martins McIntosh – Neighbor in strong support of project – Community helped create the design – Multi-Generational and Universal Design features are excellent – Support Cannery in order to meet the City’s SACOG RHNA requirements.
Lydia Delis-Schlosser – Continues to encourage comprehensive connectivity – Met with Bonnie Chiu from New Home Company this week in order to talk about Cranbrook access for the Southwest bicycle connectivity to the H Street tunnel – North Davis Land, who she represents, is open to working with Cannery and City toward a common goal.
Laura Westrup – Member of Tree Commission – Tree mitigation achievements are much better than in prior materials/plans – More outreach still needed – “Where feasible” words give her heartburn
A woman in a wheelchair whose name I was not able to hear, and who had spoken passionately at the Planning Commission meetings about how the applicant needed to do more in order to ensure that disabled seniors like herself were truly included – Promises have been kept in this process by the applicant – I strongly support this project and ask Council to approve it
Mont Hubbard – High bike mode share means low Greenhouse Gas levels – Thanks to the developer for incorporating in the bicycle community’s suggestions – The Southeast Crossing needs to be done soon in order to lock in behavior. People need to get in the habit of biking to Nugget rather than getting into their car – On the other hand the Southwest Crossing needs to be done well given the physical constraints of the narrow space between the apartments and the railroad right of way.
Eileen Samitz – Neighbors are in support . . . strongly in support – Fulfils SACOG RHNA – Development Agreement is really generous – It is time to move forward
Rodney Robinson – Concerned that the project will contribute to City’s deficit in time, and that the project will contribute to global warming – As good as it may be compared to current standards, it will not come close to getting over the bar of the future standards that our society will adopt.
Lucas Frerichs (from the dais) – What a long strange trip it has been – Davis is still reluctant to densify. We talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk – Cannery makes sense for both Davis and Yolo County – It is particularly excellent when compared to Cordova Hills a current application/proposal in Sacramento – As member of the Development Agreement Subcommittee, I am very pleased with New Home Company’s stepping forward with the long list of positive features – The developer has worked with the community – Democracy is alive and well in Davis – Won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good – Supports the project
Alan Hirsch – Cannery needs to live up to its promises – Concerned that City is assuming risk – Has New Home Company made an iron clad contractual commitment?
Joe Krovoza (from the dais) – “I want to vote yes” – I have been fixated on connectivity – The Southwest corner connectivity to H Street is still problematic and uncertain – Believes the City should negotiate with Cranbrook Apartments rather than the developer – The Development Agreement should change Exhibit G to make the $1 million for the Southwest corner connectivity increase to $2 million and move that $2 million out of Bicycle column and into Community column, so that the Community can achieve the end result – Also increase the energy sustainability education amount from $100,000 up to $250,000 – These changes would decrease both uncertainty and risk for the citizens of Davis – Making these changes as a substitute motion – a I’ve been working this issue for months and months, and these changes aren’t “last minute” even if they are actually coming at the last minute.
In closing, the one surprise for me was that in the week since the last Cannery hearing on 11/12, the following comment by Planning Commissioner Marilee Hansen was either not addressed, or no report was mad about how it was addressed.
I am concerned that the developer needs to share any “windfall” profits that are realized because of the supply/demand realities of the Davis housing market and the price ranges that the Cannery homes will sell for. The prices contained in the 11/12 Staff Report “are way low, and those numbers should be revisited” so that any windfall profits can be proportionally shared by the developer and the City. Be sure to receive Rob Hoffman’s comments about the Development Agreement. “Will” “Shall” “Must” wording needs to be consistent. Exhibit G is advisory . . . make it mandatory.
Those were all really good comments, and I personally believe that last night’s hearing would have been better if those issues had been clearly addressed.
i think this will go to a vote
Matt, it’s easy for a developer to get people lined up to speak in favor of any project. Also people with something to gain will show up. We’ll only find out the true opinion of the public when this goes to a vote. I think it goes down. This story is far from over.
GI – Do you appose the Cannery because you oppose Davis housing developments in general, or because, like others, you don’t like aspects of its design?
Like I’ve said from day one I oppose it because it should’ve been left industrial zoned. This whole thing that it’s too far from the freeway was in my opinion just a ruse so that the developer could get their way.
GI, something does not compute for me on that point. For one, it is not just the developer making that claim, it is business owners and prospective new tenants of a business park that have made that clear. It is also commercial real estate brokers confirming it.
But let’s say for the sake of argument the Cannery went completely commercial. Are you really okay with all that extra traffic that would cause? Seriously, we would have all those trucks and employees driving back and forth on Covell.
The problem with specific city development planning is that it often is done with incomplete feasibility and impact analysis. My experience with planning is that you establish a framework, and then make the right decisions when you get the opportunity to weigh all the pros and cons. And the cons for locating a business park at the back-end of the city, as far away from the freeway as you can get, are large and plentiful. Basically, a business park at the cannery is a terrible idea.
The impression I got from discussions about this a couple of years ago was that it could be viable for commercial of various sorts, but the absorption rate would be slow. I do recall there was discussion by a previous council for a 50/50 EIR, but then the whole thing fizzled.
Over the many years of discussion, we have specific business owners here telling us that it is viable, while other participants who seem to know what they’re talking about firmly assert that it isn’t. The main problem I’ve had with that discussion is that the owners who say it is viable sign their own names, while the others use pseudonyms. Not that it completely discredits their comments. It just makes it hard to assess whether they had some other agenda, such as an interest in the residential development outcome.
City has set it self up as an insurance policy for construction cost risk for the Cannery-driven transportation project.
Reality is,
>The City is on the hook to built the SE bed-bike connector What every it costs…and city allowed the developer to cap his contribution.
>The City is on the hook to upgrade Covell Blvd to reduce congestion caused by the 50% traffic increase caused by the Cannery–what every it costs…city allowed the developer has caped his contribution.
This puts needs of the Cannery residents for missing bike and road infrastructure in competition to EVERY OTHER school and road project in Davis connection.
Why should the City accept the cost-risk of any of the needed traffic improvement on Covell when they have not even been designed to get a reasonable cost estimate for the Developer to pay. Developer should have accepted this risk as part of he Development agreement, not city residents.
For Example: The underpass from Cannery to Nugget that is needed for Birch Lane/Emerson students- Neither the City or the Developer had as of last week not even contacted PGE to see what they are up to underground south of Covell near Nugget—and how it might effect the cost of this underpass. As a result the cost estimate on the Development agreement Schedule G on this project verges on fiction.
The rest of the City residents are getting little from the Cannery to build the Davis brand. The Biggest Bene–money for the Schools–is being paid for NOT by the developer, but by a SPECIAL TAX all future cannery residents will pay just for the schools–averaging $1000/home/year on top of normal levys all the rest of us pay in older parts of Davis.
The folks praising the project for the small number of “affordable” home in Davis all skip over the fact of the extra tax the developer agreed future residents pay.
The 3 members of the City Council – Wolk, Swanson and Fredricks– voted for the rest of us to assume these risks. Mayor Joe Krovoza tried to mitigate this risk but got no support. Lee would not even vote for explore Krovoza’s solution.
Fiscal Hypocracy in Evidence
Those pro-growth advocates in the audience who spoke up for the Mace 351 business park (10 years down the road Possibility) –using an argument about the “fiscal crisis” the city is in—the previous council items were ABSOLUTELY SILENT as to Next Year Fiscal risk and costs to the city had agreed to by OK’ing the Development Agreement.
Pro Growth advocates only beat the fiscal responsibility drum when it suits their agenda. Like the GOP when it ignored the cost of the war in Iraq but are willing to close down the government under Obama when the deficit is shrinking with the argument about “fiscal responsibility”.
The Cannery will be a Great Neighborhood, but DAVIS can’t afford to grow this way.
TRUST THE COUNCIL RE: SMART GROWTH
This raises a meta-question: can we trust council to act consistent with interest of residents with regard to grow in a way that will benefit ALL residents?
When Financial Short falls of the Cannery Agreement become evident, as well as the Congestions on Covell, will a City-wide vote to modify growth limits (J/R) for Davis pass muster with the voters after seeing this double-cross of tax payers?
[quote]I want my vote to say that I believe the project could be even better if there were more moderately priced homes (below $400,000) and if the project also was also a net zero energy community like West Village. [/quote]
Ideally they would ALL be moderately priced net-zero homes.
“moderately priced net-zero homes.”
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
[quote]Neither the City or the Developer had as of last week not even contacted PGE to see what they are up to underground south of Covell near Nugget—and how it might effect the cost of this underpass.[/quote]
I recall a conversation a month or two ago in which Anne Brunette said that she got PG&E to locate their bore such that it wouldn’t conflict with a future bike tunnel at L Street. It wasn’t directly related to the topic of out discussion, so I may be misremembering, but it’d be easy too check if anyone’s interested.
GI Said:
[quote][quote]Matt, it’s easy for a developer to get people lined up to speak in favor of any project. Also people with something to gain will show up.[/quote][/quote]
I think it is actually just the opposite. Much easier to get a bunch of neighborhood activists to speak out in opposition to a project, than for a developer to line-up supporters, unless those supporters are paid consultants, which tends to blunt the impact of their testimony. The reason I think that people are much more inclined to come out when they are in opposition than when they are supportive is that negative impacts from a proposed project, whether perceived or real, tend to be more concentrated on those negatively impacted than the positive impacts, which tend to be more broadly distributed. As an example, the City as a whole may want more affordable housing, whether for students or others, but those most proximate to the proposed location may not want it because of traffic, noise, impacts to property values, etc., whether real or just perceived. Guess who turns out to the public hearings to voice their opinions? The concept of a NIMBY as a somewhat specialized example of this, where one who would otherwise be supportive of a project in concept does not support it because of their own proximity to receive the negative impacts outweights the positives for them. The typical order of impacts for individuals related to impacts might typically be from highest to lowest, as follows: 1) Developer, 2) Consultants, 3) Immediate Neighbors, 4) Other Community Groups, 5) Public at Large. Also, most everyone acts in their own self-interest. There’s nothing right or wrong with that, that’s just human nature. However, the nature of that self-interest can vary tremendously amongst individuals and can appear to be more selfless in some because all benefit is not necessarily linked to economic or other tangible benefits. Is the self-interest of the nearby resident who doesn’t want the proposed project because “affordable housing” might decrease their property values really all that different than the union worker who supports the project because they want more employment opportunities? Generally, in my mind, a project should get approved if it is a net overall benefit to the community that is to approve it, if that project is the “best” project that can be obtained, taking into consideration timing and the concept of “a bird in the hand vs. the bird in the bush”. Finally, the law and “fairness” in the broadest sense also need to be factored in, as while extortion may be effective, it doesn’t sit very well with my personal sense of ethics, although I know that one’s definition of “extortion” may be someone else’s definition of “lobbying for their interests”, as I suspect few consider their own actions to be akin to extortion.
[quote] a project should get approved if it is a net overall benefit to the community that is to approve it, if that project is the “best” project that can be obtained, taking into consideration timing[/quote]
The wonderful thing about these criteria is that virtually everyone supports them. The problem is that they’re entirely subjective.
treeguy said . .
[i]”City has set it self up as an insurance policy for construction cost risk for the Cannery-driven transportation project.
Reality is,
— The City is on the hook to built the SE bed-bike connector What every it costs…and city allowed the developer to cap his contribution.
— The City is on the hook to upgrade Covell Blvd to reduce congestion caused by the 50% traffic increase caused by the Cannery–what every it costs…city allowed the developer has cap his contribution. ” [/i]
This is a very similar point to the one I noted in the article that was made by Al Hirsch. [i]”Cannery needs to live up to its promises – Concerned that City is assuming risk – Has New Home Company made an iron clad contractual commitment?”[/i] The challenge that your question and Al’s comment poses is that the reasons those realities exist are due to delays that have really been out of the control of the Cannery. It isn’t their fault that the City process to evaluate the Covell Boulevard Corridor Plan is so far behind schedule, nor is it their fault that the owners of Cranbrook Apartments were unwilling to even meet to discuss an easement until the past two weeks. The reality is that the responsibility for the risk should be shared proportionally by all the parties responsible for the delay.
Further, Covell Boulevard needed/needs improvements and/or completion of basic infrastructure regardless of whether the Cannery proceeds or not.
Finally, as I understand the presentation on the CBCP from last Tuesday, the plan is specifically and purposefully working to create additional congestion along Covell by narrowing lanes, etc. because the existing traffic studies show that all too often cars are proceeding at too fast a speed in the current configuration.
treeguy said . . .
[i]”This puts needs of the Cannery residents for missing bike and road infrastructure in competition to EVERY OTHER school and road project in Davis connection.”[/i]
I’m not sure I follow why you believe this. Mike Webb was very clear that the developer’s contributions were explicit and contractually committed so that there was no risk to the City, but at the same time, the City was retaining flexible discretion on how the funds would be spent and not directly matching the payments into restricted expenditure accounts. That is a sleight of hand flexibility that the City wants. The developer is indifferent. So again, if this is a City-driven desire, what harm does that desire cause?
treeguy said . . .
[i]”Why should the City accept the cost-risk of any of the needed traffic improvement on Covell when they have not even been designed to get a reasonable cost estimate for the Developer to pay. Developer should have accepted this risk as part of he Development agreement, not city residents.
For Example: The underpass from Cannery to Nugget that is needed for Birch Lane/Emerson students- Neither the City or the Developer had as of last week not even contacted PGE to see what they are up to underground south of Covell near Nugget—and how it might effect the cost of this underpass. As a result the cost estimate on the Development agreement Schedule G on this project verges on fiction.”[/i]
That is a very interesting question, that I also asked myself about a month ago. The answer I was given when I asked it is that the Covell Boulevard Corridor Plan is being specifically designed with the necessary capacity to not only handle the current traffic load plus the projected Cannery traffic load, but also the projected future North Davis Land Company traffic load. The logic was that it is better to build it correctly once rather than to build it at a deficient level now and then upgrade it later. That made sense to me, but it injects a level of complexity into the fiscal equations that transcends the Cannery project’s individual incremental contribution to the load factors.
Thoughts?
treeguy said . .
[i]”City has set it self up as an insurance policy for construction cost risk for the Cannery-driven transportation project.
Reality is,
— The City is on the hook to built the SE bed-bike connector What every it costs…and city allowed the developer to cap his contribution.
— The City is on the hook to upgrade Covell Blvd to reduce congestion caused by the 50% traffic increase caused by the Cannery–what every it costs…city allowed the developer has cap his contribution. ” [/i]
This is a very similar point to the one I noted in the article that was made by Al Hirsch. [i]”Cannery needs to live up to its promises – Concerned that City is assuming risk – Has New Home Company made an iron clad contractual commitment?”[/i] The challenge that your question and Al’s comment poses is that the reasons those realities exist are due to delays that have really been out of the control of the Cannery. It isn’t their fault that the City process to evaluate the Covell Boulevard Corridor Plan is so far behind schedule, nor is it their fault that the owners of Cranbrook Apartments were unwilling to even meet to discuss an easement until the past two weeks. The reality is that the responsibility for the risk should be shared proportionally by all the parties responsible for the delay.
Further, Covell Boulevard needed/needs improvements and/or completion of basic infrastructure regardless of whether the Cannery proceeds or not.
Finally, as I understand the presentation on the CBCP from last Tuesday, the plan is specifically and purposefully working to create additional congestion along Covell by narrowing lanes, etc. because the existing traffic studies show that all too often cars are proceeding at too fast a speed in the current configuration.
treeguy said . . .
[i]”This puts needs of the Cannery residents for missing bike and road infrastructure in competition to EVERY OTHER school and road project in Davis connection.”[/i]
I’m not sure I follow why you believe this. Mike Webb was very clear that the developer’s contributions were explicit and contractually committed so that there was no risk to the City, but at the same time, the City was retaining flexible discretion on how the funds would be spent and not directly matching the payments into restricted expenditure accounts. That is a sleight of hand flexibility that the City wants. The developer is indifferent. So again, if this is a City-driven desire, what harm does that desire cause?
treeguy said . . .
[i]”Why should the City accept the cost-risk of any of the needed traffic improvement on Covell when they have not even been designed to get a reasonable cost estimate for the Developer to pay. Developer should have accepted this risk as part of he Development agreement, not city residents.
For Example: The underpass from Cannery to Nugget that is needed for Birch Lane/Emerson students- Neither the City or the Developer had as of last week not even contacted PGE to see what they are up to underground south of Covell near Nugget—and how it might effect the cost of this underpass. As a result the cost estimate on the Development agreement Schedule G on this project verges on fiction.”[/i]
That is a very interesting question, that I also asked myself about a month ago. The answer I was given when I asked it is that the Covell Boulevard Corridor Plan is being specifically designed with the necessary capacity to not only handle the current traffic load plus the projected Cannery traffic load, but also the projected future North Davis Land Company traffic load. The logic was that it is better to build it correctly once rather than to build it at a deficient level now and then upgrade it later. That made sense to me, but it injects a level of complexity into the fiscal equations that transcends the Cannery project’s individual incremental contribution to the load factors.
Thoughts?
B. Nice wrote “Ideally they would ALL be moderately priced net-zero homes.”
I agree.
B. Nice wrote “Ideally they would ALL be moderately priced net-zero homes.”
I agree.