Back in November, the City Council unanimously told the developers to go back and work with neighbors to resolve differences over the features of a 27-unit project.
The most controversial portion of the project was the reduction of he 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.
As noted in November, neighbors are not opposed to any project on this property, they only object to several specifics of this particular project.
However, after extensive talks on February 4, with a large list of concerns most notably drainage, density, compatibility with the existing neighborhood, open space and the bike path, city staff is coming back to council with the proposal unchanged except for the extension of the riparian buffer zone.
Despite their differences, several of the neighbors indicated to me that the two sides did not seem that far apart. So why is city staff rushing the proposal back to council before an agreement can be reached that would satisfy the neighbors?
According to the city staff report in November, 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.
The issue of the drainage is key, right now the greenbelt area from an existing park would be minimized to accommodate the drainage requirements of the new development. The residents are asking that developers provide adequate drainage for current and new residences without taking away amenities and quality of life from current residences, particularly they want to minimize any encroachment onto existing parkland.
The design puts future water drainage into the Willowbank Park property from the 5 acre Catholic Church parcel at the corner of Mace and Montgomery, thereby forcing a significant increase in the capacity of the existing catchment basin on Willowbank 9 placed an immediate and unnecessary burden on both the neighbors and the Willowbank park developers.
City staff maintains that a portion if not all of the anticipated drainage for the Catholic Church parcel was factored into the design of the existing drainage pond. So if the Catholic Church site is developed consistent with the intended capacity–then the pond will not require future expansion. If the Catholic Church sites requires additional drainage capacity then they will need to accommodate it onsite.
Unfortunately, this would impose immediate and real burdens on existing residents.
There are also questions about a bike path that would feed directly on Mace Blvd and present hazards for both bicyclists and other vehicles. The key question is whether the bike path as shown on the site plan provides safe passage onto neighborhood streets. The neighbors are asking for a way for bikes to safely enter Mace Blvd and wish for the city to get the recommendation of the Bike Commission on this matter.
Unfortunately, according to city staff, “at this time the project is not scheduled to go back to the Bike Commission. The Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator was consulted and believes that the proposed bicycle path and street connection is appropriate and consistent with the recommendations from the Commission.”
None of these are insurmountable issues, but all of them require work in advance and it appears right now city staff is no longer interested in forging agreement between the neighbors and the developers. They bring this to council next Tuesday where council will once again weigh in on the issue.
Commentary
While the location may be suitable for development, I fail to see the need to develop at this point in time given the expressed views of the voters in November and the current housing market crisis. Moreover, the project itself is not that exciting.
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.”
Moreover, there is the question as to when this would be built. There are a huge number of entitled units that have not been built. So why the need to push this project through without agreement with the neighbors? It’s 27 units, why do we need those units to be approved right now?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think you need to reverse the question: is there any legal or procedural reason justifying further delay of the project? Doesn’t look like it.
Maybe there are no legal
Maybe there are no legal reasons to justify delaying the project, but surely quality of life in Davis should get some consideration. The developers are proposing to rip out a chunk of heavily used park to provide drainage for their new project. Instead of contributing to the greenbelt, they’re detracting from it. Greenwald got it right: “…this would impose immediate and real burdens on existing residents.” I’m mystified that the developers are getting away with this.
“Neutral” may want to choose a different screen name. This project makes no sense to me at all. Hopefully, the city council will remember what Davis citizens thought about the need for the Wild Horse Ranch development. Shame on city staff for pushing the Willowbank development forward at this time and in this way. What are they thinking? Who are they serving?
“is there any legal or procedural reason justifying further delay of the project?”
Neutral: The council has complete authority and discretion on the timing and rationale for the disposition of any land use decision. They do not need any justification for delaying or opposing a given project.
David just made my point in reponse to Neutral – the numerous entitlements requested by the Applicant in order to develop this parcel (General Plan Amendment, zoning change from Public-semipublic to Residential Med. Density) are just that, entitlements that are fully within the jurisdiction of the Council to either grant or deny.
Also, Neutral, much of the delay referenced in your posting can be placed at the doorstep of the Applicant. Months and expense were spent disputing the existence of an established DFG buffer that has been recognized and complied with by other south Davis developments including Willowbank 9, Woodbridge and Ricci Farms. Despite the willingness of neighbors to work towards areas of consensus the Applicant continues to “game” the process, often with the assistance of leadership in Community Development.
Did “Neutral” just say that city council members don’t need to provide their constituents with any justification for why they may delay or oppose a given project in the city of Davis? Even if they didn’t have to, as elected officials wouldn’t they want to?
There is a lot more to the story.
This proposed rezoning and subsequent development is adjacent to the last remaining undeveloped stretch of the North Fork of Putah Creek. The General Plan and the South Davis Specific Plan specifically state that this area should complete the Putah Creek Parkway. I don’t think many people are fully aware at just how beautiful this area is, and what an incredible community amenity this creek offers. This area supports diverse wildlife and acts as a wildlife corridor within the city limits. This could be our only chance to ensure that this natural treasure is preserved to the greatest extent possible for current and future generations.
On the other hand, the developers are treating their proximity to the creek as a nuisance. They are trying to build as close to the creek as the city will allow, and have argued and misquoted fact to promote their stand. The city already has a 50 foot easement along the creek for the future bike path. The Ordinance that governs this parcel state that there is a 50 foot riparian buffer along the creek that should be planted in native forbs and grasses. The Open Space and Habitat Commission recommended that there should be a 50 foot buffer, but the developer went to the City Council and tried to get 30 feet. City Council upheld the 50 foot setback, but the developers current plan shows every house along the creek encroaching into the buffer. The document states that the buffer should be 50 feet from the tree-shrub border. Most biologist interpret the tree shrub border to the outermost shrubs or the drip-line of the trees. The developers are claiming that it means the center of the tree trunks, therefore every single parcel along the creek would be within the 50 foot easement.
The developers are actively trying to discourage the presence of wildlife rather than trying to promote it. The area is home to the Sacramento Valley Red Fox, a recently identified native sub-species. The fox is soon to be listed as a Species of Conservation Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. Fox experts say that they don’t yet have enough information to state whether the SV Red Fox is endangered, but they do concede that it is rare in the sense that the known population is very small. The local fox expert has confirmed that the fox are clearing dens adjacent to the proposed development which indicates that they intend to raise their young here again as they have for at least the past 3-4 years. The area adjacent to the dens is a documented foraging habitat, and biologists stress the importance of having foraging opportunities that offer the protection of the den. The developers are prohibited from doing any improvements during the sensitive period; Between Feb 1 and May 31. The developer is trying to get permission from the City Wildlife Biologist to start disking the field adjacent to the dens on May 1 to specifically “ remove the foraging habitat” in an effort to displace the fox.
One of the justifications for this rezoning to allow residential development is to provide varied housing opportunities for people that work in Davis. The first houses that the developers intent to build are the highest priced houses at about $750,000. There is a new development just a few hundred feet away that has 31 lots; 1 completed house and 1 is just breaking ground. Chiles Ranch was just approved with 109 houses. Davis doesn’t need more $750,000 houses. This proposed development would be just more of the same, and would delay even longer the time it takes for currently approved housing to be built out. What is needed is affordable housing. The developer has openly expressed his disdain for being required to build affordable as part of any development agreement, refuses to comply with the accessibility requirements, and says that he won’t build the affordable until he has 2 buyers identified. ( they will be attached units ) The development agreement would allow 2 years after the first market rate ($750,000) unit is build before requiring the developer to build any of the affordable, and he could request a 1 year hardship extension beyond that. Therefore it could be more than 3 years until this development contributes anything to real housing opportunities where they are needed most. Coincidentally, the adjacent empty development was also required to build affordable within 3 years, and those sites are still bare even though we are into the 4th year.
The developer does not intend to provide the required 20% open space on this development and will pay in lei fees. I can’t for the life of me think of why a parcel next to the only creek in Davis would not be required to put the open space on-site. This is purely a market driven decision in which developers know that it is in their best interest to pay in lieu fees because they will make more money by developing more of the parcel. Putting open space on-site could go a long way toward addressing the habitat issues and creek buffer.
The parcel is currently zoned for a church, therefore the original drainage plan for the subdivision was created with this assumption. The proposed development would add significantly more impervious surface and therefore require a catch basin. The developer proposes to modify the adjacent greenbelt (created from the 20% open space requirement of the previous development) and put the additional drainage on the neighboring parcel. Since this proposed rezoning is what is creating the need for additional drainage, shouldn’t this be accommodated on their own property? On-site drainage would be yet another way to address the habitat issue and open space requirement by situating it between the creek and the development.
I think we need to think long and hard about who this development benefits. Developers certainly have a right to invest (risk loss in hopes of making a large profit) and purchase a parcel and try to get it rezoned to maximize their return on investment. The underlying question is whether this particular plan provides adequate benefit and is right for the city at this time. This is a unique parcel because of its proximity to the creek, and we should expect a lot in return in exchange for allowing rezoning. We could do so much better than what is proposed, and all it would take is to provide the developer with some clear direction. Lets tell them to come back with a plan that enhances the Putah Creek Parkway, Preserves Wildlife within the City limits, meets the Open Space Requirements, provides Real Housing Opportunities (especially low cost), and meets the Accessibility Requirements.
David: The council has complete authority
Apologies. I was trying to address what I think would be a Staff perspective. Obviously the Council has the final say, and they are all fairly good at explaining their votes.
guitar1: “Neutral” may want to choose a different screen name.
How so? I’m not advocating for this particular project, just asking a question that *should* have been answered in regards to Staff’s timing. As an aside, I’ve looked at the project and find absolutely nothing noteworthy, unique, or especially attractive in any aspect of the designs. So what? Most of Davis fits that description.
Thanks for the extensive commentary, Series_of_Tubes. All of these arguments have been made ad nauseum with staff and the Council, and they’ve been rejected. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Those arguments are so cogent and so appealing to the common good of the city, and they’re being ignored. We’re down to just trying to save the park now.
I sincerely hope that councilmembers will carefully weigh the merits of the project prior to casting their vote. As councilmembers Saylor and Souza move on to higher office and Lamar enters life as a private citizen once again, the residents next to this proposed development have to live with its ramifications forever. I checked out the property today, reviewed the Staff Report from the November hearing, and came to the conclusion that the property does seem to merit more sensitive consideration in terms of the development design.
Why be in such a rush to irreparably alter a community asset and choke off its unique wildlife value – all for a project which (IMHO) lacks creativity (“wow factor”? anyone?), fails to provide the kind of housing that Davis says it wants and needs, has only a thin veneer of “green” and provides little if any financial benefit to the City? I don’t get it.
You’re right, Chowder; this is being railroaded through, and I don’t know where the agenda is coming from. The city organized a session between concerned citizens and the developers a couple of weeks ago, and we thought we made some progress, but the plan that the developers resubmitted, with approval of staff, didn’t change an iota from the original except to widen the buffer, as they were directly instructed to do by the Council. The Council has the hearing on its schedule for next Tuesday. It has emerged that many of the neighbors who have the biggest concerns can’t be there. We asked for a postponement, but the mayor denied it, despite the fact that the Council hearing was postponed more than once in the past at the request of the developer. Go figure.
Go figure? Remember the Mayor is the one who asked Widhorse Ranch”when do you want on ballot”. It is blatant she is in developer camp.
The Staff Report came out today. At the top of page 3 is the following, “All of the identified concerns were discussed during the [2/4 neighborhood] meeting, but the drainage and potential impacts to the existing greenbelt and drainage pond appeared to be the common link between the identified concerns.”
. . . followed by, “After further neighborhood outreach it is clear that there is not universal support for the proposal . . . “
Staff then after outlining the issues says, “As currently proposed the project would eliminate all the existing trees in the southeast portion of the greenbelt . . . ” followed by “This would add to the maintenance efforts for the greenbelt . . .” and then . . . maintaining turf as shown on the plans over the long term could be difficult.” concluding with “The added maintenance costs for Parcels A, B and the greenbelt are not included in current Parks and General Services department budgeting.”
How much more compelling a case could Staff make for [u]not[/u] moving forward with the current plan? Especially since the problems that the Staff Report describes have relatively straightforward available solutions.
I will discuss specific solutions in another comment, but for the life of me I can’t understand why Staff is pushing this project forward with such abandon. The excellent work of 2/4 hasn’t even had a chance to percolate. Don Saylor and I discussed the 2/4 meeting at Joe Krovoza’s kickoff party last Friday. Don’s comment was, “that it really was heartening to see how close the two sides really were.” If he truly believes that (and I have no reason to think he doesn’t) then using the next month to make the most of the hard work of the neighbors and the developers and Staff. The end result will be a plan that is better for all parties.
It looks to me like the developer is bending the rules to grab every inch of land. For instance, they have convinced city staff to define the tree-shrub border as the tree trunks. The trees at the east end of the parcel are more than half way down the bank of the creek. No one in their right mind would interpret the start of a riparian border at anything less than the top of the creek bank. Using this logic, since there are no trees on the west side of our property that borders the creek, can we assume the riparian buffer starts at the trees on the other side of the creek?
Like the developers, we purchased property in south Davis for over a million dollars before the real estate market tanked. Of course we hoped that our investment would pay off, but we now have to put the property back on the market in the next 6 to 12 months and it’s highly unlikely that we will get even close to what we paid, and virtually impossible that we will profit from our investment. I doubt the city can offer us any assurance that we will recoup our purchase price; yet Brix and Mortar Development Co. is whining that redesigning the project to address serious issues (from homeowners nearby, wildlife experts, property owners that have had to comply with the city’s buffer requirements, Davis citizen commissions, and even the city public works department) doesn’t “pencil out”! – that is, assure that they will profit from their investment. If other property owners aren’t granted that assurance when they invest in property why should this developer feel entitled to have it? Also, why haven’t we heard more about this issue when apparently the city council will be voting on it on Tuesday? We live less than a half mile from this potential building site and haven’t heard a peep about it coming up for a decision. Isn’t the city supposed to give notice to those living nearby when something this big comes along? When we bought our property the agent told us that land was owned by a church and wasn’t zoned for residential puposes. What the . . . ?!
Good points, Sven. It’s puzzling to me that no one working for the City or on the Council questions the gospel of “it doesn’t pencil out.” I don’t know about the rest of you homeowners here but my real estate transaction of several years ago isn’t penciling out too fine right now. That’s the way it goes. But the City Council, which has the ultimate jursidiction to approve or deny this ill-conceived project, has no moral obligation to shore up the balance sheet of Brix and Mortar Partners. They may indeed have paid too rich a price for the property…but their quest for profit maximization should by no means drive the design of this project. And lest we ring our hands too much over the financial situation of Brix and Mortar Partners, remember that they intend to develop the site in 2 phases…they’ll more than make their money back on the first six homes with a tidy profit to boot…and the remaining 16 market rate units will all be gravy. And that’s what developers do, buy land, assume the risk, and attempt to “improve” the land for their profit. We just should hold their feet to the fire to advance a creative design with the kind of housing Davis needs that suits our current priorities. And I submit that Willowbank Park is not it.
[quote]It’s puzzling to me that no one working for the City or on the Council questions the gospel of “it doesn’t pencil out.” [/quote] Dexter: When developers have complained that “it doesn’t pencil out”, I have frequently pointed out that none of us are guaranteed a profit on our investments, and if the project doesn’t “pencil out”, we should consider whether it is because the developer has paid too much for the land. There are certainly some projects of undisputed importance to the public, where the city might want to consider compromising some principles and/or amenities in order to help a project “pencil out”, but for standard residential developments, I have cautioned against this line of reasoning.
So City Staff, are not even trying to find a design on this project that the neighbors can live with. Well what cab we expect with the arrogance and antagonism of Katherine Hess at the helm of our planning as director of the Community Development Department? This is more of the same anti-citizen, anti-good planning that Hess is infamous for and this trend is clearly continuing as she leads the city down the path of self-destruction planning.
Hess screwed over the Chiles Ranch neighborhood in much the same manor. And for all of this bad planning ruining neighborhoods and causing anger and upset amongst the citizens, we get to pay this, the most incompetent planning director in the history of Davis, $166,000 a year. Hess is the most logical budget cut we need to make for the sake of the future of Davis. Firing Hess is the first step to getting decent planning. We can’t do much worse than her. She now has also brought on a law suit from NewPath that will cost us Davis taxpayers big bucks for probably the next 3-4 years!
I’ve suggested this before and I’ll suggest it again. Let’s get bumper stickers made for our cars that say:
SAVE DAVIS = FIRE HESS
Also why not a petition to fire Hess which lists of all of her egregious screw-ups and bad planning decisions that have ruined, or are going to ruin, neighborhoods? Hess needs to be fired now before ANY more planning is done, including THIS lousy plan which the neighbors oppose. Send this terrible plan back to the drawing board, and this time WITHOUT Hess’ involvement and we are much more likely to have a better plan that the neighbor’s can live with. I agree with the Vanguard article. Why are we rushing this project? What’s wrong with getting it right? The Willowbank Park proposal obviously needs more time to resolve the major problems it STILL has.