By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – On April 24, The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of a five-year extension of the Development Agreement (DA) for Chiles Ranch. The DA for the project, first approved in 2009, is set to expire in July and this would extend it until July 6, 2029.
Chiles Ranch is a single-family residential development with a total of 96 units located at 2411 E. Eighth Street, which was approved by the City Council in 2009 and modified in 2017.
The initial project drew considerable concern from surrounding neighbors and was subject to a 3-2 vote of approval by the council,
The applicant, Don Fouts, has been working for several years to prepare the Chiles Ranch subdivision maps for recordation, and includes development of subdivision improvement plans.
He asked for the additional time to complete the final map process and begin construction of the subdivision.
The Planning Commission made several additional recommendations to council including project milestone requirements, recordation of the final maps by 2026, and an annual update to the Planning Commission.
Staff noted that “commissioners acknowledged a critical need for new housing in the community and were supportive of seeing the subdivision built and completed. However, they also expressed concerns about the delays and need for another project extension.”
The comments largely focused on “the importance of ensuring timely buildout of the subdivision, holding the developer to their commitments, reasonable options to accomplish that, and whether to incorporate consequences for the developer.”
Staff noted that several public comments were submitted to the Planning Commission: “Comments expressed concerns about the project delays and amount of time that has passed, concerns about site maintenance and weeds, consideration for a redesigned project or increased density or possibly less dense project.”
Among the comments received, Carol Chandler of Regis Drive noted, “I am writing to express my strong opposition to the request for extension of the Chiles Ranch Development Agreement Subdivision. While the local neighborhood is not interested in preventing development of this property, Mr. Fouts has proven himself irresponsible in creating the “necessary infill housing” he claimed the City of Davis needed so badly in 2010. He made these claims and has had plans in place for more than 12 years. He has been granted one extension already. Another 5 years is unacceptable.”
Attorney Ken Murray, who was involved in the original negotiations wrote, “The sunny side association has a pre-existing agreement with the developer to ensure that various features were addressed in the development. Meetings were held with previous city council members to reinforce the importance of the request requirements under that agreement with the developer. And speaking with other members of the association which reside immediately adjacent to the new development, we would like to make sure that those previous agreements are addressed.”
There have been community and commission concerns expressed about the increased value of the property in the 15 years since original approval, and there have been concerns raised about the project that was approved being out of sync with what would be approved in 2024.
The project came up two years ago asking for an extension and more time.
Back in 2022, critics pointed out that, while the applicant has sat on his entitlements, the value of the homes have nearly doubled.
Project Manager Lydia Della-Schlosser presented to the Planning Commission and explained the delay—again, this was two years ago: “Our original approvals were received in 2009, but at that time we paused due to the economic conditions of that period’s so-called Great Recession. In 2015, as the economy recovered from the economic cycle, we were fortunate to acquire the entitled land at Grande Village and the El Macero property.”
At the time, Commissioner Darryl Rutherford said, “I’m a little concerned with where things are at with this development—it’s been almost ten years, a lot of things have changed.”
At the same time, the applicant has noted that there is a national developer willing to build the project, but also he implied that any effort to substantially change the development agreement will precipitate that developer walking.
