Two weeks ago the Davis City Council heard from the neighbors and developers on the proposed project at Chiles Ranch. The infill project has triggered strong opposition from neighbors as they believe the agreement they reached with the developers in the form of an MOU has been violated. At that meeting, City Attorney Harriet Steiner informed the council that they are not bound by the MOU signed between the developers and the neighbors. However, council by a 5-0 vote agreed to holdover the issue to see if the developers and neighbors could reach a compromise.
There are four key issues in question. First is the total number of units. That number was agreed to as 107 units in an MOU signed in June of 2008. However, city staff has recommended 21 second units (Granny flats). The neighbors have argued that that constitutes an additional 21 units on the site, pushing the total number of units to 128, which violated their agreement with the developer and greatly increases density. The developer has been willing to compromise at 10 units. However, the neighbors continue to argue that they already signed an agreement for zero additional units, and thus they should not have to come off that number.
“Staff stated that if the developer and SNA could reach consensus on a number of second dwelling units within the development, staff would recommend support for that number. Further staff proposed that if an agreement could be reached, the language in the zoning ordinance would be modified to prohibit additional second units within the subdivision beyond those provided at initial construction. SNA asked whether owner occupancy of the primary dwelling could be required on lots with second units. Staff responded that we would contact the city attorney on this issue, but did not think it would be possible.”
Without an agreement,
“If agreement cannot be reached on this issue, staff recommendation for inclusion of 21 second dwelling units would remain unchanged.”
Second is the issue of the buffer. In this case, we are talking about a decrease of 3 feet and 3 inches from the agreed upon distance. According to the staff report:
“The position of SNA membership is that the buffer will be compromised with the decrease of 3.’3″, and that any decrease is significant. The developer noted that they did not believe this was a breach of the agreement, as the change is staff driven. The applicant noted that a fence would be installed at a point between the structures, but that the distance between the structures would not decrease and that only five lots on the east side would be revised.”
From the perspective of the neighbors understand that they came down from wanting 100 and compromised at 50. So for them, an additional three feet plus is not insignificant. The developer as the report indicates is arguing that staff is driving this change, and therefore it is not a violation of their agreement.
There is also concern about a bike path that would merge bicyclists onto the roadway. The neighbors are complaining that the applicant had no interest in pursuing a bike path through the cemetery. The applicant argues that they had discussions but that the bike path was no possible through the north buffer to the cemetery.
Staff continues to recommend that of the options presented, the one ending the bicycle corridor at the “knuckle” in the road as proposed is the safest. As directed by Council a condition will be added to the Findings and Conditions of approval as follows: “The proposed bicycle path located in the east greenbelt and terminating at the public street within the project prior to E. Eighth Street will be brought before the before the Bicycle Advisory Commission for comment prior to finalizing details of the bicycle path.”
A big issue were the proposed hours of construction arose as well. The original hours of construction would have been 7 am to 7 pm daily and 8 am to 8 pm on weekends.
“The SNA is requesting hours of construction be limited to reduce long term impacts on the neighborhoods during the phased construction. The applicant is open to the concept of limiting hours, so long as it is not so restrictive as to impact the livelihoods of those hired to construct the project. Although no specifics work hours were suggested by SNA, the idea of no work on federal holidays was raised, as well limited hours during the week. SNA will prepare a proposal for applicant and Council consideration. SNA asked staff whether restricted work hours had been placed on other projects. Staff has found that the recently approved Grande project included the following condition regarding construction noise.”
The original staff report did not address hours of construction but council could support a modification of work hours.
As we go down the list of issues here, none of them are that big in terms of actual numbers, however for the neighbors much of this is a matter of principle. They would argue that the original numbers represented two years of hard work and careful negotiations where the neighbors had to substantially compromise in order to reach the agreement. They feel that the agreement was reached in good faith and that the developer is obliged to follow the agreement. Again, the city argues that they are not bound by the MOU, but what makes this interesting is that the negotiations are between the neighbors and the developer, who ought to be bound by it. That could make for some interesting legal issues if the neighbors decide to pursue it.
Some have gone as far as to suggest that this process imperils Davis’ City Council’s model of recruiting citizen input on proposed developments arguing that if the city can modify agreements between citizens and developers, why should the citizens invest the time and energy into such agreements. While the frustration aspect of this is clear from the standpoint of the citizens, they clearly gained much more than they lost in this process. The Vanguard continues to support citizen participation in the developer process, warts and all, however, also believes that city staff and city council should adhere to signed agreements as much as possible, short of legal issues. And that any alterations to the proposal should have general agreement with the neighbors. This has not occurred in this case and that is to the detriment but not the destruction of this process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If the city is not bound by MOUs between nbrs and developers, then such MOUs are not worth the paper they are written on. What it essentially means is that the developer can agree to anything to appease nbr complaints, while working with the city to do whatever the heck it wants. There needs to be a CLEAR CITY POLICY ON MOUs between nbrs and developers – the city needs to honor them unless there is some unanticipated illegality.
I live on Regis Drive near the north side of the proposed development. While the article addresses some of the issues it is far from complete. The revised project, if approved, could be seen as City Council’s statement that the formally requested neighborhood input (many hours over several years) takes a backseat to last minute and undiscussed changes made by City Planning.
The additional 21 units do have an impact. The so-called “granny flats” mean more people and more cars. It is an undiscussed and last minute change made by City Planning w/o any discussion w/ SNA. City Planning states that the additional units are not used in density calculations which just doesn’t make sense.
The article fails to note that buffer changes also include the addition of parking spaces and a home owners association space on the north side. The buffer formally agreed on was supposed to reduce the impact of Chiles Ranch. Having cars behind a house does make a difference.
Construction hours are important to anyone who may have a development nearby. Currently, Monday/Friday (7-7) and Saturday/Sunday (8-8) are standard City Planning policy for any development (not just Chiles Ranch).
Another unmentioned City Planning change is the reduction of total greenspace because the City will not pay for the upkeep. Historically, Davis has supported green. Perhaps this may be changing because of cost. It does have impact beyond Chiles Ranch.
This project has been presented as having committments to alternative transit options and energy generation. I fail to see how a 12 acre development w/ no bike lanes and one bike path encourages alternative transit. Of course, there’s the 8th Street bus connection so any owner can walk (or ride) to the bus stop to get around. The PV discussed is providing connections, not actually installing panels.
The median price of the units (described as “bungalows” in initial discussions) is $427k. This figure was provided by Katherine Hess, (City Development Director) when questioned by City Council on June 16. S
Chiles Ranch is described as a mix of single and multistory properties. There is just one single story unit.
Personally, I don’t think that “high density” is automatically good. It is a term that is often used these days. Mixed use high density residential w/ walk and bike options to do errands/other sounds great. This project originally had density comparable to downtown SF. Ok but unfortunately it’s missing places to eat, grocery stores and other errands easily done by walking, biking or quick public transit (ie: cable cars). A residential only high density based primarily on car use doesn’t look quite so “green”. Just my opinion.
SNA has spent nearly 2 years negotiating to establish a binding legal agreement. This article fails to make clear that City Planning has made the changes just 2 months before the project goes to City Council for a vote. None were discussed. The Sacramento Area Coalition of Governments (SACOG) conducted an expensive series of formal design sessions to recruit neighbor input. We’ve attended. City Council specifically asked for neighbor input. We’ve put in substantial amounts of time. We have a signed legal agreement w/ the developers. We’ve been thanked over and over for our input. Now what the Council will vote this Tuesday has important undiscussed changes made by CIty Planning.
The Tuesday 6/30 Council vote will be a useful opportunity to see if citizen input and a detailed MOU are important. It’s a chance to see if an expensive “showcase” program designed to promote neighbor/developer cooperation has been successful. It will help clarify how development is done in this town, who sets policy and who makes the decisions that have important long term impact.
I am disgusted with how Planning Director Catherine Hess is screwing the Chiles Ranch (better known as the Simmons Property) neighborhood over like she has so many others including the L St. neighborhood, south Davis and neighborhoods in virtually every part of town. She never has and never will advocate for the citizens. She has a long history of looking out for the best interests of the local developers as she did when she basically ran a campaign for Whitcombe while “processing” his Covell Village application five years ago. What a sham that was and the citizens had to worked hard against her and him to stop it.
I am also fed up with the way our city is being run and especially with the Planning Department. We need administration who gives damn about the citizens and their concerns. These Chiles Ranch developers are just trying to squeeze more mega-bucks out of this project and reneging on their agreement.
Hess, true to form, is backing these local developers up. With a median price of $472 this Chiles Ranch project is NOT affordable housing. Send it back to the drawing board or better yet, stop the whole damn project and keep it as open space. It is a beautiful and historic piece of land with over 200 vintage oaks that they will cut down. Why does this property need to be developed now or ever? Why the rush to jam this terrible proposal through and doing so much damage to the neighborhood and the relationship to the neighbors?
I would like to thank Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek for their vote and support for the citizens of Davis they were elected to represent. I am appalled by the arrogance of Don Saylor lecturing the neighborhood association for their public display of approval after Sue Greenwalds comments. Don you work for us, we don’t work for you. Let me phrase that so you may understand it. We are not your subservient peasants and you can stuff your self righteousness. Try and remember that and maybe you will someday cast a vote inline with the Davis citizens you represent. Thanks to Sue again for pointing out Don Saylors hypocrisy on his lecturing the neighborhood association as he had no issue at a previous council meeting when attendees applauded his comments. Anyone interested in starting a recall of Don Saylor??? I know where you can start with 240 donations.
Just wanted to clarify that the agreement between SNA and the developers, NUD, is NOT an MOU (memorandum of understanding), it is an LOA (letter of agreement). The difference is important only in that an MOU is sometimes perceived as less specific, e.g., an “understanding.” SNA spent considerable time negotiating the LOA so that it would be as specific as possible. No agreement is ever perfect, but we were very pleased with the negotiations with the developers during the process of arriving at the LOA.
Looks to me like LOAs or MOUs between neighbors and developers are not worth the paper they are written on. The City Council has made it clear they can just ignor such things and do whatever the hell they want.