Council Allows Three Story Lofts in Willowbank but Limits Them to 32 Feet

There are a number of procedural issues that arose during the lengthy discussion that I will discuss in the commentary portion of this article.

The council listened to several issues on Tuesday night.  First, the provision of nine townhouse units, in clusters of three, in place of the originally proposed six single family detached units along the northern edge of the site.  Second, opening of view corridors to the habitat buffer with additional land to be added to the east and west ends of the habitat buffer and provision of 26 foot side yard wall-to-wall openings between townhouse clusters.  Third, replacing the previously approved five affordable housing units with four units with modified layouts.  And fourth, payment of in-lieu fees for two affordable housing units (proposed at $50,000 per unit for two units) to be memorialized in an amendment to the Development Agreement.

Part of the discussion focused on the third story option.  A number of neighbors came forward on Tuesday to issue concerns both about the third floor option and encroachment of the buffer.  The neighbors expressed concerns about privacy impacts of the third story.  A number of concerns that were raised include the fact that while the loft may benefit those living in the townhouse units, it might not be a benefit to the neighborhood.  Moreover they are out of character with the area.  There is a concern that the loft may end up being another bedroom which would increase density, traffic, noise.

Responding to some of the concerns raised by neighbors who back onto the north side of the creek, the applicant showed an exhibit to illustrate the site/tree line as viewed from eye level at the third story windows/balcony.  However, those views were during the months in which there was foliage in the trees and not during the winter months when the views will be less obstructed due to the fact that the trees lose leaves.

Staff argued that the tree line, when combined with the distance to the yards across the creek (approximately 145 feet) adequately addresses privacy concerns.

However, I think Councilmember Sue Greenwald made several very important points with regards to this.  She pointed out that putting third story buildings immediately adjacent to a nature preserve made little sense.  It decreases the views of the creak to the other homes.  It will urbanize the creek.

We have had a lot discussions about the need for increased density, but not enough about the appropriate locations for that.  Clearly in the center of town, the need to go to three stories can be argued.  However, as Councilmember Greenwald points out along a scenic creek that the council had previously taken great pains to preserve and to creek an adequate buffer, I think is inappropriate.

Moreover, as she pointed out, fifty feet is not all that far in terms of distance from creek to a third story building.  In parts of the core, that is the size and depth of one’s backyard.

The council following Councilmember Stephen Souza’s lead limited the height to 32 feet, nevertheless, the location for the third story buildings does seem problematic.

In the future it would seem a far better approach to simply raise general questions and send a project back to staff to work out the details.  Staff would also have the ability to meet with individual councilmembers and get feedback on the details before bringing the entire project back to council.

Part of the problem here might be that council has for some reason taken the approach of ramming projects through.  Willowbank is a good example because there should have been no urgency.  The city does not really need 29 additional units built at this time.  However, they chose to approve a project a few months back that did not have full support from the neighbors, it short-circuited what had been productive discussions, and the project was not even finished in terms of design.  They essentially re-worked this entire section.

With both Verona and now Willowbank we have to question exactly what a development agreement means as the council can with three votes always alter it.  A question about variances to requirements on buffers and mitigation measures has also been raised.  The neighbors contend that both the Swainson’s Hawk Mitigation Measures along with the buffer have been violated by the developers.  In addition, the developers may request some sort of variance.

The point was raised again by a member of the public that Stephen Souza had assured compliance with the developer agreement when the project was finally approved on March 30, 2010.

At the time, Councilmember Stephen Souza gave the neighbors the following assurance, “Within the Development Agreement is assurances of a minimum 50 foot habitat buffer as measured from the top of the southern bank of the Putah Creek drainage canal to the rear fences of all units along the northern project perimeter.  That is ironclad.  It is in the Development Agreement and cannot be breached unless the developer and the Council agree to change it.  I’m sitting up here, I’m going to be here for another two years.  I’m not going to breach that.  I have no intention whatsoever…I feel assured that these parameters within this Development Agreement will not be breached.  That they will hold.”

But what we have seen with both Verona and Willowbank, that these assurances do not have a good deal of teeth beyond the three vote threshold.

As was mentioned earlier, the notion of density is alluring to a city that is not likely to expand its boundaries, that wishes to become more compact in its urban form while maintaining its open space and small town appearance.  The question that really needs to be resolved is where to increase density, under what conditions, where and when should the city grow upward to three stories or possibly even four stories?  These need to be resolved not in a patchwork fashion but with a city policy that identifies where, when, and under what conditions to build up.

In this case, I think on the edge of a nature preserve and fragile ecosystems that the city has taken great pains and expense to preserve may be inappropriate.  On the other hand, any infill growth is likely to trigger responses from the neighbors for less density and less height.  We need to balance our concerns about impacts on existing neighbors with the need for density and height in light of climate change and in light of city policies and priorities.

I do not have a good answer to this tension, but having a uniform policy probably is a good start.

Finally, and frankly this should be its own piece and perhaps will become its own piece as the week moves along.  We found out last night, that Mayor Ruth Asmundson is heading off the Philippines on some Sister City Junket.  My understanding is that she is taking a number of Davis residents along with her.  This will not be at city expense, however, I think we need to start questioning some aspects here.

First, she attempted to move the meeting along and truncate discussion based on her need to leave early.  Second, she left the meeting before the discussion on the last item.  Granted it was an informational item and granted that she will not be on the council in the future to act on the issue of Woodburning. 

But third, there is no council meeting next week in part because she will be gone.

Fourth, several people have raised the question about the appropriateness of some of the Sister Cities we have. 

Fifth, these seem to serve little purpose for the functioning of our city government.  They simply allow our elected officials to go to another country and receive rather posh treatment, and in some places by rather repressive governments.

I would really like us to end the sister city stuff in the next council.  I think we need to look at ending business as usual, particularly given our economy and the challenges we face.  I would like to see far less ceremonies, far less presentations taking away from discussion time of vital and important issues, fewer weeks off for council meetings and fewer items on the agenda.

It seems that we often rush through some key discussions but then get bogged down as we did on Tuesday in minute details that staff should handle.  My hope is that the new council can look at these issues with a fresh eye and can make the necessary changes.

—David M. Greenwald reporting