It is strangely interesting that just two weeks after the city voters overwhelming voted down a highly innovative Measure J project, the council majority is pushing forward with a 27-unit project that has almost no green features. That they did not approve the project on Tuesday night only delays the inevitable. There were serious enough problems with the current proposal that they simply could not go forward.
The most controversial portion of the proposal reduced the long-established 50-foot riparian buffer zone along the Putah Creek Parkway down to 30 feet. This went against the recommendation of the Open Space and Habitat commission and was seen by the council as going too far. It also went against what the Staff Report acknowledges went against general plan requirements.
While that may be true, the neighbors are not the only people who have a stake in the development of this property and I will shortly explain why perhaps we should not develop it at all at this time.
The 50 foot buffer is also crucial for the protect of habitat for the red fox. The red fox has several dens on the south bank of Putah Creek. One of the suggested remedies would have been to keep the 30 foot buffer and have open fencing so the foxes could encroach onto people’s properties, a notion that Councilmember Heystek seemed more than a bit incredulous about. The fox is considered a new species but not an endangered species per se.
The winning argument on the buffer last night seemed to be that the city has established the fifty foot buffer as a standard buffer.
According to the staff report, the greenbelt did not meet with general plan requirements in terms of providing a minimum 10 percent buffer.
“The Willowbank Park subdivision proposes 5 percent greenbelt, excluding the habitat buffer area along the south edge of Putah Creek. The proposed greenbelt does not meet the minimum 10 percent or the average 100 feet width required under the General Plan. Given that this is an infill site, it is practically infeasible to provide the average 100 feet greenbelt width and still design an acceptable residential density for the site.”
If a 30 foot buffer was 5 percent, then a 60 foot buffer would have met the requirements of 10 percent. The neighbors were only asking in fact for a 50 foot buffer which seems a reasonable compromise under the conditions.
Councilmember Souza expressed a bit of exasperation that these issues with the neighbors cannot be worked out. He said that he has been on the council for five and a half years and there has been exactly one project that has had full support of developer and neighbors and that was Grande where the developers were the school district and that only happened after years of contention and a complete redesign.
A secondary issue here is the issue of the drainage and the city will re-examine that issue along with the developers. Right now the greenbelt area from an existing park would be minimized to accommodate the drainage requirements of the new development. There are also questions about a bike path that would feed directly on Mace Blvd and present hazards for both bicyclists and other vehicles.
These issues were serious enough that the council has pushed this project back until January. There are many other issues that neighbors brought forth as well.
While the staff report argues that the project meets the city’s Green Building Ordinance and Carbon Reduction plan requirement, the actual proposal pales in comparison to recent projects such as Wildhorse Ranch.
“The project would comply with the city’ Green Building Ordinance and proposes a Carbon Reduction plan that would meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction standards. The applicant and the staff are in agreement on the target for greenhouse gas reduction that would be applied to this subdivision. Possible measures include exceeding 2005 Title 24 standards by 35% and installing 23.5 kW of photovoltaic within the subdivision.”
This is nothing to brag about even though the developer bragged at the Planning Commission hearing in June “it will be the greenest project in Davis.”
The other issue is that the affordables in this project, there a total of five affordable units out of the 27. The affordable housing price will be $247,500 per unit. That is based on the current affordable housing prices on 80 to 120% of the Yolo County Area Medium Income for a household of four people. The other units will range from $425,000 to $750,000. All of the market rate units will be visitable and one of the affordable units will be fully accessible (remember in Wildhorse Ranch, all of the affordable units were fully accessible).
The bottom line as many people have suggested is that while this site is fine in terms of location for development, the project itself is lacking. But I really have to question the need for the project right now. It would be one thing if this were a great and innovative project, but it is not. In fact, far from it. It is development as usual in Davis. The voters had a chance to approve an innovative project two weeks ago but decided that this was not the right time for development, the argument that 2000 houses is enough, while challenged here, ultimately prevailed.
Fact remain and were acknowledged. Mayor Ruth Asmundson openly asked whether there could be an expiration date on entitlements. The answer seems to depend on what factors have gone forward, but in many places, the units have already been subdivided and therefore cannot be revoked. However, the problem is clear, there have been numerous projects approved but given the housing market few building permits have been pulled. I believe the number is 8 this year.
In the past, the council majority has used the number of building permits pulled as a reason to approve more development, but guess what? There have been numerous projects approved in the last year–Verona, Chiles, and Grande for starters. There are close to 500 units that could be build in Davis today and yet in the case of Verona for example, the developer got the project entitled and is now looking to sell. All of which begs the question, why rush this project forward that had clear objections from the neighbors, is not innovative, is far less sustainable than the recent Wildhorse Ranch Project? What good does it do the city to put the units forward at a time when people are not buying houses and banks are stingy in terms of lending capital?
The city has acknowledged the problem with the developments being approved and then the property sitting in wait. As several on the council explained, the 1% growth model is supposed to avoid what happened in the 1990s when a huge amount of units were developed all at once. The idea, whether we agree with the 1% number is another question, has some validity, which is to have a constant flow of housing rather than a boom and bust cycle where a ton of housing comes online and then no housing for years at a time.
All of which makes some level of sense, but there are some problems with it. The chief problem is that right now, who is going to invest their money for a house that may have to sit on the market for a period of time. I drive by a number of houses everyday that are on the market and they have been on the market for over a year. These are nice houses that would have been snatched up in better time.
The city has gone to the step incentivizing pulling building permits in the next 18 months.
From the staff report on a supplemental residential fee:
“The Developer shall pay $60,000 to be used at the City’s discretion. The Developer shall also pay $1,000 for every building permit issued for a unit prior to June 30, 2011 and $3,000 for each building permit issued for a unit after on or after July 1, 2011, this is applicable to all 27 units.”
This is acknowledging this problem and trying to create the incentive to pull building permits sooner rather than later.
But the opposite question can be asked, why now? This is a 27 unit property, it’s neither going to harm or save the city in terms of available housing. I do not seem the harm in waiting for a better time to approve this project, in the meantime, I think Councilmember Souza has a point, fix the project, get it right with the neighbors. Neighbors have a stake in the process, obviously they are not dictators, but there are ways to make this a far better project. There are a whole list of things that would make this a far better project, I see no reason to approve this before that list is achieved.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Given some of the comments by the neighbors and City staff, the developer would have been just as well off handing in a blank sheet with ‘Willowbank Park’ written on it. As long as the legal design requirements are met, I see no reason the project shouldn’t go forward. In this case the developer would be well within his right to build on smaller lots, to substantially increase the density, in essence to radically change the entire layout. Five and a half years without an approved project means the problem lies in the *process*.
There have been many projects approved in the last five and a half years.
Should have been clearer: referring to Souza’s comment about ‘support’ of the neighbors.
In that case, I agree.
Thank you for your insightful comments, but actually, I don’t believe the neighbors (I am one of them) are in favor of this project. We would much prefer a low density development, in keeping with what we have in the existing neighborhood. Furthermore, most of us have gone as far as we can to be green (with solar panels, maximal insulation, double paned windows, etc.), and we would prefer any new development to be state of the art in this regard. Early on in discussions with city staff and the developer we were accused of NIMBY and got so beaten down about it that we accepted the inevitable that the project was going forward no matter what we did. So we did the best we could to fight the worst aspects, which led us to the Council decision last night.
David, there are currently 105 active listings in Davis per Metrolist MLS, including 8 short sales, and none of the listings show days on the market exceeding one year.
Joe: Maybe it only seems like a year, I probably shouldn’t have put such a definitive number on it.
jhcrowe: Thanks for the additional information.
David Greenwald: You conveniently neglected to mention that I make a strong case that 2,000 units was enough for now, and that I saw no need to approve, or to build, new housing into this week market. I also argued to make the developers place the drainage area on their own site, rather than destroy the beautifully landscaped greenbelt area outside the project area. Additionally, I strenuously made the case that the developer was not contributing enough to the city.
David, in all honestly, I often feel that your blog twists its reporting to fit your own narrow agenda of promoting the political interests of a small local faction, which includes your wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, the campaign consultant Bill Ritter, and Mike Harrington, along with a few other friends.
I should add that I argued that we don’t need to approve more housing at this time.
I also argued that the drainage area should be accommodated on the project site rather than on what is currently a beautifully landscaped greenbelt segment outside the project boundaries, and that the developer was not contributing enough to the city.
Thank you, Sue. We really appreciate your support. BTW I can’t see that the developer’s plan contributed anything to the city. Indeed, it would have reduced the greenbelt enormously without adding anything. In the developer’s presentation last night the claim was made that a greenbelt was being added within the development. This was news to us– until we spotted the date on the graphic. It was dated yesterday! I know this isn’t over yet, but it’s gratifying that voices of reason have prevailed, at least for now.
The City Council majority wants more “development” so that nothing should be surprising here. Nothing will change until the Council majority changes.
“Early on in discussions with city staff and the developer we were accused of NIMBY and got so beaten down about it that we accepted the inevitable that the project was going forward no matter what we did.”
Hey JH: The same thing happened to the neighbors around the Wildhorse Ranch site; in fact, Phil King and I were told by Don Saylor at one of his “office hours” that it was a good thing that we all “worked” with developers; thanks Don for that sage advice; how’d you feel after a 75% NO vote!
Keep fighting! unfortunately, you all won’t have a Measure J vote on this, but you can continue to pressure the CC, especially since Ruth will be up for re-election, that NO new development is really necessary or feasible for Davis; we’ve met our growth requirements, and any approval of projects right now will clearly look like pandering to developers’ interests.
[quote]especially since Ruth will be up for re-election[/quote] Say, for example, that Ruth chooses to retire. Lamar is not running; and Don is running (unopposed) for Supervisor. That means 3 open seats. What happens if no one other than Joe Krovoza runs? David stated on this blog that his wife won’t run next year. Rob Roy (the ice cream man, not the cocktail made with Scotch) is no longer in Davis. I don’t know if Sydney Vergis is going to load up on fire union dollars again and run on their behalf. If it’s only Joe Krovoza, will he be given 3 votes on the council?
Please come back, Rob Roy! [img]http://www.wholesalepages.co.uk/directory/offer/4557/Rob_Roy_Flagolet_240.jpg[/img]
Rich: Vergis has said she is running, Ruth has said she is running, so that’s at least three candidates, I predict at least three more, but we’ll see.