On May 28, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to allow developers to create a small, eight-unit infill development called the Paso Fino subdivision. The matter is currently scheduled to be taken up by the city council after they return from their break in late August.
The Paso Fino subdivision is located at 2627 E. Covell Boulevard on a 0.79-acre private property, and 2675 Moore Boulevard (a 0.75-acre public property). It is surrounded to the south by Covell Boulevard and to the north, east and west by an improved Neighborhood Greenbelt parcel.
The Hausslers built a single family home in 1966, but the home is now unoccupied. When Wildhorse was build in 1998, land was created as a private buffer to benefit the Haussler property both the city and developers claim, and protect them from the homes built in Wildhorse. That land is currently designated as greenbelt.
The plan calls for the existing residence to be demolished and the reconfigured property would result in eight units.
In 2009, the city approved a four-unit development on the subject site, which requires a land transaction between the city and the property owners for the westerly greenbelt land. That plan would have retained the greenbelt to the east. However, the land transaction was never executed and therefore the approval was never effectuated, according to the staff report.
Staff notes, “The current proposal would change the easterly greenbelt to Residential Low Density designation in order to allow the proposed eight-lot residential subdivision. This land use designation change to accommodate the proposed project does not include the land transaction negotiation. However, approval of this land use change request is subject to the City Council approval of the land transaction, a separate action.”
“(This) was meant to be an innovative experiment,” Developer Dave Taormino said. “We should embrace all of the policy and debates about neighborhoods, aging in place in particular. So we have four single story houses.”
The plan, however, is not without its controversy. At the Planning Commission meeting, about a dozen neighbors objected to the fact that the city would sell a greenbelt for development.
The Planning Commission itself was divided, as it was a 3-2 vote to support the changes, with Cheryl Essex and Merilee Hansen in opposition and two members absent.
Greenbelt
One of those neighbors who has spoken out is Claudia Morain, formerly a spokesperson for UC Davis. In an op-ed in the Davis Enterprise, she wrote, “The city of Davis, perhaps for the first time, is considering selling a greenbelt to a private developer.”
“Many in Davis are deeply concerned about the proposals and the precedent they would set,” she wrote. “About 15 of us from the immediate neighborhood and beyond attended the hearing. I had one main question: Does Davis have a policy governing the sale of greenbelts to developers?”
Ms. Morain, who maintains the website www.davisgreenbelts.org, adds, “We just don’t think the greenbelts should be used for new housing.”
Mike Webb, the city’s Director of Community Development, told the Vanguard that the greenbelt here is “not the typical greenbelt configuration” that the public would ordinarily envision as a long, city maintained stretch of grass and vegetation that people can walk or bike through.
Rather, it is a stretch of trees and brown ground that was specifically designed to buffer the Haussler home from the surrounding neighborhood.
As developer Jason Taormino explained to the Vanguard, from his perspective, “the 2009 Staff report defines the land as a private buffer to benefit the Haussler property and protect them from the new homes that were built in Wildhorse in approximately 1998. The sale of this private buffer in order to promote infill development is reasonable as it is no longer needed to protect the Haussler property from the encroachment from the new neighbors in Wildhorse.”
“The greenbelt on the east side… that was created for the Haussler family, it wasn’t created for the Wildhorse subdivision,” Dave Taormino explained to the Planning Commission.
In the staff report, it noted, “The City does not have any specific guidelines regarding elimination of greenbelt parcels, or what to do when an infill densification project involves the potential to remove an existing greenbelt space. Therefore, this becomes a policy issue to be weighed by the City Council.”
Cheryl Essex, a member of the Planning Commission, noted, “We don’t have policies in the city for selling greenbelts because we don’t sell greenbelts. If the city is going to sell a portion of the greenbelt then there must be a clear public benefit and I don’t believe that increasing housing units is a clear public benefit in this case.”
Marilee Hanson, also a Planning Commissioner, told the Vanguard that because the issue might come back to the Planning Commission, they were advised not to make comments in the press. She directed the Vanguard back to comments she made at the Planning Commission meeting.
“No one ever envisioned that the city would start selling off the Greenbelt,” Ms. Hanson stated. She added, “80 percent of the neighbors here tonight bought their homes never envisioning that that land would be sold off for development except for the four houses which people acknowledged that they knew about and that they support.”
That was a point that was reinforced by Claudia Morain, with whom the Vanguard met a few weeks ago and who expressed the idea that when the neighbors bought these homes, they were sold them noting that it backs up to a greenbelt – that was part of the real estate sales pitch.
Ms. Hanson pointed out that there are many infill units that have been approved. “I don’t think we are so desperate that we have to start selling off Greenbelt.” She would add that people came to this town because of the greenbelts and “they never dreamed the city would start selling them off.”
Mike Webb told the Vanguard he believes that the concerns of the neighbors and others in this regard are overstated.
He said, “The reports of the City putting greenbelts on the market or entering into a new trend of selling parks and greenbelts for private development I think are a bit far-fetched as this is the only property that I can think of that has ever had any such discussions, either current or past (e.g. 2009 where an agreement was reached but not executed). It is also not the typical greenbelt configuration.”
The 2009 Agreement and Issues of Density
Merilee Hanson stated at the Planning Commission, “These people who came up and testified tonight, they (combined) have invested millions of dollars in this area.”
“These are not NIMBY’s,” she added. “No one here has said they’re against development.”
Claudia Morain, in her piece, argued, “The City Council can revive the plan it approved for this piece of property back in 2009.”
She added, “That plan, which also was approved by the Planning Commission, would build four houses on the site. It would not just preserve the greenbelt. It would augment it with a patch of the private land that holds some of Yolo County’s oldest and tallest trees, trees that the Davis Tree Commission believes are irreplaceable. One, a majestic canary pine, is a nesting site for a Swainson’s hawk. Her flights to and from her nest captivate bird lovers throughout Yolo County.”
Dave Taormino said that there are eight lots and they “are equal to or slightly larger than all the neighborhoods around.” He added, “The fact of the matter is they are the same density. We are not terribly densifying.”
He said that the four-project proposal called for estate size lots. He said, while he could build that size, “I thought we should make this an innovative type of neighborhood and that’s why we came up (with the current plan).”
“We’re not overbuilding the site, we’re not proposing to hurt the neighbors,” he said.
However, Bob Hagedorn, a former Planning Commissioner who also lives in the area, told the Vanguard that, while they argued “it was no more dense than the neighborhood, but it is more dense.” The houses, he argued are smaller than all of the homes in the area, the driveway down the center of the development is only 14 feet wide. He said, “It’s a difference in the density because the houses are much closer together, almost like a condo project.”
He stated, “It is filling in, not infill.”
However, Jason Taormino told the Vanguard that the lot sizes are very similar across Wildhorse.
Commissioner Mark Braly asked Dave Taormino if a four-unit development was feasible financially.
Dave Taormino stated, while it might be financially feasible to do four units, “If we thought that was the right plan we would have just done it that way.”
Jason Taormino explained to the Vanguard that they did not want to just do any project, they wanted to do a good project and they felt that a four-unit development of estate size homes was simply bad planning.
He told the Vanguard, “The previous developer did not make an agreement with the neighbors. They went through the normal City of Davis planning process to gain all the necessary entitlements needed.”
“The previous developer believed that building large expensive homes on large lots was best,” Mr. Taormino added. “They were mistaken and freely admit that their plan was not feasible and they did not go through with the land purchase as there was not a demand for million dollar plus homes on that site.”
The Issue of the Removal of the Canary Pines
The plan calls for the removal of a small number of Canary Island Pines – between 3 and 9 depending on the plan. Staff writes, “The Canary Island Pine trees are considered potential urban ‘habitat’ as one of the trees has a potential Swainson’s hawk nest, and the trees provide visual interest.”
Staff adds, “The applicant, consistent with Tree Ordinance, has proposed mitigation measures that the City Arborist/Urban Forest Manager has found to comply with the Tree Ordinance. The mitigation measures proposed consist of a combination of payment of in-lieu fees, on-site planting, and offsite planting of trees.”
Dave Taormino told the planning commission that they are planting 433 new trees to replace the six canary island pines. He said that they ran into complaints about the trees. He argued it was an 8 to 1 ratio of trees planted to remove and “15 years from now the tree canopy with those 433 is going to be a lot greater in the community than it would be saving those trees.”
Jason Taormino explained, “The developers will plant approximately 433 trees on City approved sites along with approximately $23,000 to fund the City’s Street Tree Program. Additionally, they will provide care for the newly planted trees for specific time period. Some of the sites are in the Wildhorse neighborhood: specifically Rockwell and Moore, Greenbelt on Moore/Arneson Park, and the Sandy Motley park. They have proposed to plant more Canary Island Pines on the Wildhorse sites to offset those removed on the Haussler property.”
Eileen Samitz spoke during public comment and noted, “The historical value of those trees (is) a loss that you cannot recapture.” She added, “Please preserve the trees.”
Mr. Taormino also noted that all of the pines are located on the Haussler family property, not public property and so regardless of the configuration, those trees would be removed.
“They’re pretty trees no doubt about that and if there was any way to save them under (the current plan), we would have,” Mr. Taormino told the Planning Commission.
Street Width and Other Safety Issues
The neighbors also had complaints that the street widths are too narrow to accommodate emergency vehicles. They also note they are required to move their garbage to the main road and Claudia Morain showed the Vanguard what that might look like.
Claudia Morain and Bob Hagedorn told the Vanguard that these are narrow streets without real sidewalks. It is a walkable community but not a walkable street. And they are concerned with the layout that has sidewalks at street level with parking between the sidewalk and the road edge.
There are eight foot wide parallel parking spots on either side of the street in front of each home, providing a twenty foot clear path of travel which is sufficient for cars and fire truck access.
Each of the eight homes has two parking spaces in their garage, two parking spaces in the driveway and one space in front of the home.
The single exception is lot eight, which has a single car wide driveway, in order not to infringe upon the root space of one of the Canary Island Pines.
Jason Taormino explained that, as proposed, the street is 36′ wide. Sargent Court is 28′ wide.
He added, “Fire trucks, pedestrians and bicycles will have 20′ ‘in the clear’ for safety on our street. On Sargent Court fire trucks and bicycles only have 12′ ‘in the clear’ and the City has determined that Sargent Court meets safety standards.”
He said, “There are no safety issues associated with the width of our street, traffic speed on our street or safety issues with designing the street so that pedestrians and bicycles walk and ride inside of parked cars rather than outside of parked cars.”
He wrote, “One can see around town that the trend has been to elevate bicycles and pedestrians and make them feel at home – even on busier streets. Our street is a public access point from Moore to Covell and as such the innovative design signals walkers and riders with visual clues that they belong in this space.”
Land Swap Explanation
There was some confusion with who owned the land and how the land would be exchanged. At the Planning Commission, Dave Taormino explained that they currently own the Haussler property.
Jason Taormino explained how the process worked to the Vanguard. “City Staff with Council direction required a fair market appraisal by an appraiser of their choice. The appraisal was completed and we made an offer.”
He added, “The council made a counteroffer to which we responded, reaching an agreement on a cash purchase based on the approval by the City of the final development design. After completing these negotiations we submitted our current Plan ‘A.’ Both Plan ‘A’ and ‘B’ are consistent with our negotiations.”
Mike Webb explained to the Vanguard, “The greenbelt currently creates a horseshoe shaped ring around the east, west, and north sides of the site – effectively insulating the Haussler home from the development that occurred around it.”
“The concept proposed by the applicant would entail selling the eastern and western portions to the applicant, and swapping the northern portion for the southern portion so that the city obtains Covell frontage in the missing chunk where the City does not currently have it,” he continued. “As you can see, the City has the pathway frontage to the east and west along Covell but the piece in the middle is private property.”
Mr. Webb drew up a crude drawing that illustrates this.
None of this is a done deal and the city council will have to weigh in on the greenbelt issue before it is all approved. Currently, that hearing is set for late August.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Correction from Mike Webb: “Thank you for your story on Paso Fino. I wanted to clarify one of the statements in the story regarding property transactions involving the City. For Paso Fino the City Council has not reviewed the project or provided staff with any direction regarding appraisals or offers. The Paso Fino developer prepared their own appraisal and discussed it with staff. This did not constitute a negotiation with City Council direction. Staff informed the developer of the process and that nothing would be negotiated or discussed without City Council direction. The statement from the developer regarding “how the process worked” is incorrect. The City Council has not reviewed the project or provided any direction to staff regarding appraisals or negotiations. Please provide this clarification to your readers. If you have any questions or need further clarifications let me know. “
Correction from Mike Webb: “Thank you for your story on Paso Fino. I wanted to clarify one of the statements in the story regarding property transactions involving the City. For Paso Fino the City Council has not reviewed the project or provided staff with any direction regarding appraisals or offers. The Paso Fino developer prepared their own appraisal and discussed it with staff. This did not constitute a negotiation with City Council direction. Staff informed the developer of the process and that nothing would be negotiated or discussed without City Council direction. The statement from the developer regarding “how the process worked” is incorrect. The City Council has not reviewed the project or provided any direction to staff regarding appraisals or negotiations. Please provide this clarification to your readers. If you have any questions or need further clarifications let me know. “
Buffers between the existing residences still would exist. I think this is a nice project. What will the city do with the proceeds from the sale?
Only is Davis could building eight/just over half a dozen track homes in the middle of an area with HUNDREDS of similar track homes be a “big controversy”…
When it’s being built on a city owned greenbelt it should become a big controversy.
Buffers between the existing residences still would exist. I think this is a nice project. What will the city do with the proceeds from the sale?
Only is Davis could building eight/just over half a dozen track homes in the middle of an area with HUNDREDS of similar track homes be a “big controversy”…
When it’s being built on a city owned greenbelt it should become a big controversy.
“In the staff report, it noted, “The City does not have any specific guidelines regarding elimination of greenbelt parcels, or what to do when an infill densification project involves the potential to remove an existing greenbelt space. Therefore, this becomes a policy issue to be weighed by the City Council.””
this is an odd thing. i mean a bunch of people state, no one ever thought they would develop on a greenbelt, but why not? especially since greenbelts are not all the same park-type set ups we see in other places.
“In the staff report, it noted, “The City does not have any specific guidelines regarding elimination of greenbelt parcels, or what to do when an infill densification project involves the potential to remove an existing greenbelt space. Therefore, this becomes a policy issue to be weighed by the City Council.””
this is an odd thing. i mean a bunch of people state, no one ever thought they would develop on a greenbelt, but why not? especially since greenbelts are not all the same park-type set ups we see in other places.
“That was a point that was reinforced by Claudia Morain, with whom the Vanguard met a few weeks ago and who expressed the idea that when the neighbors bought these homes, they were sold them noting that it backs up to a greenbelt – that was part of the real estate sales pitch.”
Caveat emptor.
Especially when the auctor is a realtor.
There are things the neighbors can ask for mitigation . The one that causes the most distress is second story windows with direct views into adjacent yards. The first home I purchased in Davis as a John Ott development in North Davis that included CCRs and required view mitigation to maintain as much yard privacy as possible. There were a lot of one-story homes, and the two story home required, lot positioning, bigger setbacks, clear-story windows, etc… all in the design to prevent that feeling of being constantly watched by your neighbor as you enjoy your yard. The lots were smallish, and they still managed to mitigate most of the upper story direct views.
Then Elmer McNeece comes to the city with a changed design for the adjacent empty lots for a three story apartment complex, and a three story senior complex that eliminated the setbacks he had previously agreed to and existed in the plans when people purchased their homes. The neighbors got together and fought Mr. McNeece and in the end the setbacks were put back and he had to change the building design and also plant a bunch of specimen-sized trees.
But nobody was making the case that since those were empty lots they could not be developed.
Seek compromises people.
“That was a point that was reinforced by Claudia Morain, with whom the Vanguard met a few weeks ago and who expressed the idea that when the neighbors bought these homes, they were sold them noting that it backs up to a greenbelt – that was part of the real estate sales pitch.”
Caveat emptor.
Especially when the auctor is a realtor.
There are things the neighbors can ask for mitigation . The one that causes the most distress is second story windows with direct views into adjacent yards. The first home I purchased in Davis as a John Ott development in North Davis that included CCRs and required view mitigation to maintain as much yard privacy as possible. There were a lot of one-story homes, and the two story home required, lot positioning, bigger setbacks, clear-story windows, etc… all in the design to prevent that feeling of being constantly watched by your neighbor as you enjoy your yard. The lots were smallish, and they still managed to mitigate most of the upper story direct views.
Then Elmer McNeece comes to the city with a changed design for the adjacent empty lots for a three story apartment complex, and a three story senior complex that eliminated the setbacks he had previously agreed to and existed in the plans when people purchased their homes. The neighbors got together and fought Mr. McNeece and in the end the setbacks were put back and he had to change the building design and also plant a bunch of specimen-sized trees.
But nobody was making the case that since those were empty lots they could not be developed.
Seek compromises people.
“These are not NIMBY’s,” she added. “No one here has said they’re against development.”
Actually that is exactly what you are. Why not embrace the fact that you live there and don’t want this design where you live?
Once again Davis residents come out against densification in their own neighborhood. As I like to say, densification is great except for the people living in it. Great in theory, lousy in practice.
the person you are quoting is a planning commissioner, not one of the neighbors.
“These are not NIMBY’s,” she added. “No one here has said they’re against development.”
Actually that is exactly what you are. Why not embrace the fact that you live there and don’t want this design where you live?
Once again Davis residents come out against densification in their own neighborhood. As I like to say, densification is great except for the people living in it. Great in theory, lousy in practice.
the person you are quoting is a planning commissioner, not one of the neighbors.
What was wrong with the 2009 development agreement? It really undercuts the city’s credibility when a developer seeks to change a development agreement after the fact. Any development agreement, at least in theory, includes input and feedback from the various ‘stakeholders’ which certainly includes the neighbors. If a developer can just wait and then change the density or environmental impacts, that raises an issue: what value does a development agreement really have?
if all the stakeholders can come to a mutually agreeable new plan, then it’s reasonable to go forward. But it’s hard to see how anyone other than the developer benefits from these changes.
Certainly those pines should be protected.They have very high value in both tangible and intangible ways.
If I read the article correctly under either plan those trees are gone.
I couldn’t agree more wth Don Shor’s comment. The issue here is not just in-fill and densification as good planing. What Shor speaks to is a matter of policy and principle. With huge new and complex developments being proposed, the City had better get it right and make very clear that development agreements actually mean something, otherwise we could be in for a lot of problems and “bait and switch” – with developers planing, if not hoping, to game the system. Let’s make it clear now …that is not how we do business in Davis.
define: “we”.
“Certainly those pines should be protected.They have very high value in both tangible and intangible ways.”
Agreed.
Don Shor wrote: “Any development agreement, at least in theory, includes input and feedback from the various ‘stakeholders’ which certainly includes the neighbors. If a developer can just wait and then change the density or environmental impacts, that raises an issue: what value does a development agreement really have?”
Pardon my bringing up another topic, but I think the principle above does make this other development issue relevant to this part of this discussion. Ramco successfully chipped away, piece by piece, at the original, late in December, gotta-do-it-now-or-else development agreement for Mace Ranch. This means to me that, depending on the developer and the city council at any given time, any one development agreement can be either a reliable representation of what will be done, or it can be not worth the paper it is printed on.
What was wrong with the 2009 development agreement? It really undercuts the city’s credibility when a developer seeks to change a development agreement after the fact. Any development agreement, at least in theory, includes input and feedback from the various ‘stakeholders’ which certainly includes the neighbors. If a developer can just wait and then change the density or environmental impacts, that raises an issue: what value does a development agreement really have?
if all the stakeholders can come to a mutually agreeable new plan, then it’s reasonable to go forward. But it’s hard to see how anyone other than the developer benefits from these changes.
Certainly those pines should be protected.They have very high value in both tangible and intangible ways.
If I read the article correctly under either plan those trees are gone.
I couldn’t agree more wth Don Shor’s comment. The issue here is not just in-fill and densification as good planing. What Shor speaks to is a matter of policy and principle. With huge new and complex developments being proposed, the City had better get it right and make very clear that development agreements actually mean something, otherwise we could be in for a lot of problems and “bait and switch” – with developers planing, if not hoping, to game the system. Let’s make it clear now …that is not how we do business in Davis.
define: “we”.
“Certainly those pines should be protected.They have very high value in both tangible and intangible ways.”
Agreed.
Don Shor wrote: “Any development agreement, at least in theory, includes input and feedback from the various ‘stakeholders’ which certainly includes the neighbors. If a developer can just wait and then change the density or environmental impacts, that raises an issue: what value does a development agreement really have?”
Pardon my bringing up another topic, but I think the principle above does make this other development issue relevant to this part of this discussion. Ramco successfully chipped away, piece by piece, at the original, late in December, gotta-do-it-now-or-else development agreement for Mace Ranch. This means to me that, depending on the developer and the city council at any given time, any one development agreement can be either a reliable representation of what will be done, or it can be not worth the paper it is printed on.
” . . . when the neighbors bought these homes, they were sold them noting that it backs up to a greenbelt – that was part of the real estate sales pitch.”
Without taking a stand on the greenbelt issue, I find this statement amusing. This was not the City that stated this, but the real estate agents that sold them the home. And what they stated was “it backs up to a greenbelt”, factually true. This reminds me of numerous instances I have read throughout the country where real estate agents have told buyers, “oh, those railroad tracks haven’t been used in years”. Factually, true. But when the tracks went back into use, the home buyers complained that they were told by their real estate agents that the tracks hadn’t been used in years.
Uh, huh . . .
” . . . when the neighbors bought these homes, they were sold them noting that it backs up to a greenbelt – that was part of the real estate sales pitch.”
Without taking a stand on the greenbelt issue, I find this statement amusing. This was not the City that stated this, but the real estate agents that sold them the home. And what they stated was “it backs up to a greenbelt”, factually true. This reminds me of numerous instances I have read throughout the country where real estate agents have told buyers, “oh, those railroad tracks haven’t been used in years”. Factually, true. But when the tracks went back into use, the home buyers complained that they were told by their real estate agents that the tracks hadn’t been used in years.
Uh, huh . . .
“They were mistaken and freely admit that their plan was not feasible and they did not go through with the land purchase as there was not a demand for million dollar plus homes on that site.”
Wildhorse has many homes priced over $1 million dollars on Rockwell and many other homes within the community priced in the $7 and $800,000’s. So if the Paso Fino homes were larger in size they’d have no problem selling the in the $1 millions in my opinion.
“Jason Taormino explained that, as proposed, the street is 36′ wide. Sargent Court is 28′ wide.”
Sargent Court is a true court, it has a big round wide street at its end that makes it easy for vehicles to turn around. As you can see in the pics Paso Fino is a straight narrow street with no way to turn around easily creating a three point turn to get out. I can’t imagine the hassle fire engines or garbage trucks are going to have to deal with getting in and out.
I don’t care what you call them, greenbelts or buffers. These people paid good money to buy there thinking they had a city greenbelt or buffer next or behind them. To take that away is robbery and devalues their properties. Those saying caveat emptor would not be saying it if the property was adjacent to their homes. IMO one could just as easily say caveat emptor to the developer that bought the property thinking they could just get their way and steamroll the neighbors and build on these greenbelts. If 4 homes was agreeable to the neighbors, maintained the greenbelts and penciled out for the developer then that sounds like the compromise that should be undertaken.
BP wrote:
> I don’t care what you call them, greenbelts or buffers. These people paid
> good money to buy there thinking they had a city greenbelt or buffer next
> or behind them. To take that away is robbery and devalues their properties.
Zillow has the homes on the other (non greenbelt) side of Sargent court worth MORE. Maybe building the homes will worth MORE after the new homes are built (I know I would pay MORE for a home that did not have random people walking and riding bikes past it at all hours of the night…
First of all does it take into account the different sizes of the homes. Not all homes in Wildhorse are the same or were built by the same builder. Secondly I’ve found Zillow not to be that reliable. SOD, maybe you wouldn’t like a greenbelt behind you but most people do, it creates open space behind their homes without having a two story home looking down on your property.
“Random people”
– meaning poor people or people that you feel don’t belong in your exclusive club of wealthy homeowners? The greenbelts are for all of Davis’ citizens, not just the homeowners who live next to them.
Check out “Berkeley Court Apartments”, 1315 Dwight Way in Berkeley. I was in the parking lot, trying to figure out how cars got into the lot, as there was no driveway. I realized what appeared to me to be the walking path between the parallel apartment buildings doubled as the driveway. I didn’t measure the width, but I doubt anything but a small car could make it’s way through.
So what’s your point?
“They were mistaken and freely admit that their plan was not feasible and they did not go through with the land purchase as there was not a demand for million dollar plus homes on that site.”
Wildhorse has many homes priced over $1 million dollars on Rockwell and many other homes within the community priced in the $7 and $800,000’s. So if the Paso Fino homes were larger in size they’d have no problem selling the in the $1 millions in my opinion.
“Jason Taormino explained that, as proposed, the street is 36′ wide. Sargent Court is 28′ wide.”
Sargent Court is a true court, it has a big round wide street at its end that makes it easy for vehicles to turn around. As you can see in the pics Paso Fino is a straight narrow street with no way to turn around easily creating a three point turn to get out. I can’t imagine the hassle fire engines or garbage trucks are going to have to deal with getting in and out.
I don’t care what you call them, greenbelts or buffers. These people paid good money to buy there thinking they had a city greenbelt or buffer next or behind them. To take that away is robbery and devalues their properties. Those saying caveat emptor would not be saying it if the property was adjacent to their homes. IMO one could just as easily say caveat emptor to the developer that bought the property thinking they could just get their way and steamroll the neighbors and build on these greenbelts. If 4 homes was agreeable to the neighbors, maintained the greenbelts and penciled out for the developer then that sounds like the compromise that should be undertaken.
BP wrote:
> I don’t care what you call them, greenbelts or buffers. These people paid
> good money to buy there thinking they had a city greenbelt or buffer next
> or behind them. To take that away is robbery and devalues their properties.
Zillow has the homes on the other (non greenbelt) side of Sargent court worth MORE. Maybe building the homes will worth MORE after the new homes are built (I know I would pay MORE for a home that did not have random people walking and riding bikes past it at all hours of the night…
First of all does it take into account the different sizes of the homes. Not all homes in Wildhorse are the same or were built by the same builder. Secondly I’ve found Zillow not to be that reliable. SOD, maybe you wouldn’t like a greenbelt behind you but most people do, it creates open space behind their homes without having a two story home looking down on your property.
“Random people”
– meaning poor people or people that you feel don’t belong in your exclusive club of wealthy homeowners? The greenbelts are for all of Davis’ citizens, not just the homeowners who live next to them.
Check out “Berkeley Court Apartments”, 1315 Dwight Way in Berkeley. I was in the parking lot, trying to figure out how cars got into the lot, as there was no driveway. I realized what appeared to me to be the walking path between the parallel apartment buildings doubled as the driveway. I didn’t measure the width, but I doubt anything but a small car could make it’s way through.
So what’s your point?
What will the city net from this?
Is it possible to put it into a “rainy day fund” for a special project like, say, a 50 meter pool or as a future down payment for another project?
What will the city net from this?
Is it possible to put it into a “rainy day fund” for a special project like, say, a 50 meter pool or as a future down payment for another project?
Perhaps its that this is what densification looks like.
it’s one type of densification. for the most it isn’t that bad except for the greenbelt part.
Perhaps its that this is what densification looks like.
it’s one type of densification. for the most it isn’t that bad except for the greenbelt part.
I don’t understand why this is a City-wide issue. It is a neighborhood issue – a fence war, so to speak. If safety is a concern, then drop the number of units to 6 as suggested by The Enterprise. The bike path does serve a public purpose, but it looks like the development will still allow biking through to Covell. Claudia had to realize that once the Haussler family passed away that the piece of property would be sold and developed. She can try to argue that the buffer was created for her benefit and enjoyment, but she was clearly led astray by her realtor. She can try to state that this is a beginning of a trend of selling off greenbelts, but I find that farfetched.
it’s a city-wide issue because as the article states, the city has to create a greenbelt policy.
I used to also find that idea far fetched, but no longer.
Example: The city does things like buy the DACHA homes for far less than they are worth. They now make a fortune on the rents they are charging the previous DACHA homeowners for their own co-op home, that they are now just renting from the city. The city did not even reimburse the co-op owners for their lost down payments (carrying charges). They said they had no legal obligation. They just started charging the DACHA owners rent, and the DACHA owners lost their down paymes. This shows a lack of ethics, and a lack of compassion for the DACHA owners.
The city is now selling one greenbelt.
What makes you think the city has such high ethical standards that they won’t sell more greenbelts?
I don’t understand why this is a City-wide issue. It is a neighborhood issue – a fence war, so to speak. If safety is a concern, then drop the number of units to 6 as suggested by The Enterprise. The bike path does serve a public purpose, but it looks like the development will still allow biking through to Covell. Claudia had to realize that once the Haussler family passed away that the piece of property would be sold and developed. She can try to argue that the buffer was created for her benefit and enjoyment, but she was clearly led astray by her realtor. She can try to state that this is a beginning of a trend of selling off greenbelts, but I find that farfetched.
it’s a city-wide issue because as the article states, the city has to create a greenbelt policy.
I used to also find that idea far fetched, but no longer.
Example: The city does things like buy the DACHA homes for far less than they are worth. They now make a fortune on the rents they are charging the previous DACHA homeowners for their own co-op home, that they are now just renting from the city. The city did not even reimburse the co-op owners for their lost down payments (carrying charges). They said they had no legal obligation. They just started charging the DACHA owners rent, and the DACHA owners lost their down paymes. This shows a lack of ethics, and a lack of compassion for the DACHA owners.
The city is now selling one greenbelt.
What makes you think the city has such high ethical standards that they won’t sell more greenbelts?
It’s a city issue because the city has to decide that if every time something doesn’t pencil out for the developer , whether or not they are going to signal that “bait and switch” is perfectly o.k.
It’s a city issue because the city has to decide that if every time something doesn’t pencil out for the developer , whether or not they are going to signal that “bait and switch” is perfectly o.k.
There is no city policy in place re: selling greenbelt property?
There is no city policy in place re: selling greenbelt property?
First, a minor point. I said that the proposed homes are as large or larger than those immediately surrounding the proposed development, not smaller.
Second, and more importantly, I look at this as a planning issue. When Wildhorse was built the Haussler property was zoned for two homes. Thus it always could be more dense than the lone single family home. In 2009, the development proposal originally called for 5 homes. We did not oppose the increased densification at that time. We worked with the developer on many issues, such as traffic and pedestrian safety –the driveway into the project was at Calder. That project did not require numerous daily U-Turns as do the current proposals.
We also felt that preserving many of the mature trees, including the canary pines, while also maintaining the neighborhood greenbelt was a laudable goal. We achieved these goals by compromising at 4 homes. — twice the zoned density. The 2009 proposal preserved the canary pines and in my view enhanced the greenbelt. It provided for a swap of the westerly portion. That portion become private property and Haussler land adjacent to the easterly green belt was to be deeded to the City. This placed the canary pines onto public property and almost doubled the size of the easterly greenbelt.
We worked a long time with the developer and the City. The compromised proposal satisfied the developer, the neighbors and furthered City of Davis goals. The 2009 proposal addressed traffic safety concerns, allowed infill, densification and open space and tree preservation. All are important.
Thanks, Bob. It’s good to have the original development proposal explained and the process clarified. So again, I ask others here what was wrong with the 2009 agreement, and what benefit would any of the other stakeholders gain from changing it to the developer’s proposal?
I haven’t heard any compelling reason to change the development agreements. And I think it’s important to adhere to an agreement that resulted from proper process, collaboration, and compromise by all parties.
Simple question…is the current developer the one that negotiated the previous agreement? If yes, then you have a valid argument. If not, then that previous agreement is no longer pertinent as it was never finalized. A new developer should be free to negotiate a new development agreement without being held hostage by the prior proposal.
You still have a potential argument about the process, but only if the developer or the City have violated their legal requirements.
Understand your point however it seems from this and other proposals, when the prior approved project is not begun and the land sold, it doesn’t start from scratch…..the project is now considered as amended whereas I think a new proposal is a new proposal and should be assessed as new….do you agree?
It is not our/city’s problem that for whatever reason the prior developer didn’t finish the approved project….it should start the process over.
It seems as if the city is tryng to appease the developer at the detrement of the local homeowners and members of the Wildhorse community who many like to use these greenbelts.
“I think a new proposal is a new proposal and should be assessed as new….do you agree?”
Yes, hence my comment about process. If however the legal process allows for this to be considered as an amended project, than the argument should be about changing that process, not about denying this project just because someone preferred the previous version.
SODA
This is exactly one of the points that I was trying to make.
You have expressed it much more clearly. Thanks.
First, a minor point. I said that the proposed homes are as large or larger than those immediately surrounding the proposed development, not smaller.
Second, and more importantly, I look at this as a planning issue. When Wildhorse was built the Haussler property was zoned for two homes. Thus it always could be more dense than the lone single family home. In 2009, the development proposal originally called for 5 homes. We did not oppose the increased densification at that time. We worked with the developer on many issues, such as traffic and pedestrian safety –the driveway into the project was at Calder. That project did not require numerous daily U-Turns as do the current proposals.
We also felt that preserving many of the mature trees, including the canary pines, while also maintaining the neighborhood greenbelt was a laudable goal. We achieved these goals by compromising at 4 homes. — twice the zoned density. The 2009 proposal preserved the canary pines and in my view enhanced the greenbelt. It provided for a swap of the westerly portion. That portion become private property and Haussler land adjacent to the easterly green belt was to be deeded to the City. This placed the canary pines onto public property and almost doubled the size of the easterly greenbelt.
We worked a long time with the developer and the City. The compromised proposal satisfied the developer, the neighbors and furthered City of Davis goals. The 2009 proposal addressed traffic safety concerns, allowed infill, densification and open space and tree preservation. All are important.
Thanks, Bob. It’s good to have the original development proposal explained and the process clarified. So again, I ask others here what was wrong with the 2009 agreement, and what benefit would any of the other stakeholders gain from changing it to the developer’s proposal?
I haven’t heard any compelling reason to change the development agreements. And I think it’s important to adhere to an agreement that resulted from proper process, collaboration, and compromise by all parties.
Simple question…is the current developer the one that negotiated the previous agreement? If yes, then you have a valid argument. If not, then that previous agreement is no longer pertinent as it was never finalized. A new developer should be free to negotiate a new development agreement without being held hostage by the prior proposal.
You still have a potential argument about the process, but only if the developer or the City have violated their legal requirements.
Understand your point however it seems from this and other proposals, when the prior approved project is not begun and the land sold, it doesn’t start from scratch…..the project is now considered as amended whereas I think a new proposal is a new proposal and should be assessed as new….do you agree?
It is not our/city’s problem that for whatever reason the prior developer didn’t finish the approved project….it should start the process over.
It seems as if the city is tryng to appease the developer at the detrement of the local homeowners and members of the Wildhorse community who many like to use these greenbelts.
“I think a new proposal is a new proposal and should be assessed as new….do you agree?”
Yes, hence my comment about process. If however the legal process allows for this to be considered as an amended project, than the argument should be about changing that process, not about denying this project just because someone preferred the previous version.
SODA
This is exactly one of the points that I was trying to make.
You have expressed it much more clearly. Thanks.
“I think it’s important to adhere to an agreement that resulted from proper process, collaboration, and compromise by all parties.”
Agree completely.
This for me is the heart of the matter. This would appear to be a matter of a carefully thought through process, complete with compromise, as Frankly stated, that led to the agreement of the 4 house plan. While I am not usually a proponent of building “mini mansions”, in this case this was the agreement arrived at. It does not seem appropriate to me to then abrogate the agreement simply because the current developer does not like the previously arrived at compromise.
I do not have any interest in this particular property, but I certainly do have an interest in not setting a precedent
( or more precedent given the Cannery rezoning, and the 4th street project) of rescinding previous agreements because a new developer sees the chance to increase profits ( if indeed this is the motivation).
One other concern. I am not seeing how it is relevant who was the intended beneficiary of the greenbelt. Greenbelts benefit many different people in different ways. Once the greenbelt has been established, it seems to me that it is worth maintaining unless there is some vital city interest at stake. I do not see how eliminating this greenbelt benefits anyone but the developer. It seems to me that a clear city policy is needed regarding retention/disposition of green belts.
“I think it’s important to adhere to an agreement that resulted from proper process, collaboration, and compromise by all parties.”
Agree completely.
This for me is the heart of the matter. This would appear to be a matter of a carefully thought through process, complete with compromise, as Frankly stated, that led to the agreement of the 4 house plan. While I am not usually a proponent of building “mini mansions”, in this case this was the agreement arrived at. It does not seem appropriate to me to then abrogate the agreement simply because the current developer does not like the previously arrived at compromise.
I do not have any interest in this particular property, but I certainly do have an interest in not setting a precedent
( or more precedent given the Cannery rezoning, and the 4th street project) of rescinding previous agreements because a new developer sees the chance to increase profits ( if indeed this is the motivation).
One other concern. I am not seeing how it is relevant who was the intended beneficiary of the greenbelt. Greenbelts benefit many different people in different ways. Once the greenbelt has been established, it seems to me that it is worth maintaining unless there is some vital city interest at stake. I do not see how eliminating this greenbelt benefits anyone but the developer. It seems to me that a clear city policy is needed regarding retention/disposition of green belts.
Also a little more information here: http://www.davisgreenbelts.org
Also a little more information here: http://www.davisgreenbelts.org
interesting that the neighbors prefer McMansions over densification.
why do you find that interesting? the neighbors prefer fewer houses, less noise, fewer traffic impacts, and less encroachment on their property – shockingly boring.
interesting that the neighbors prefer McMansions over densification.
why do you find that interesting? the neighbors prefer fewer houses, less noise, fewer traffic impacts, and less encroachment on their property – shockingly boring.
Let me see if I understand this.
The neighbors had agreed to a plan designed collaboratively with a different developer.
The new developer wants a different plan than was initially agreed to.
The neighbors don’t like the plan for a number of reasons.
It would seem to me that there is a clear path forward here. I would recommend that the developer sit down with the neighbors and relevant city staff and start at the beginning to develop a proposal that would come the closest to meeting everyone’s needs.
I personally do not believe that this solution should involve removing these unique and valuable trees nor essentially confiscating a greenbelt regardless of original stated purpose. But I am looking at this as someone who has nothing to gain financially one way or the other but am primarily interested in a fair and amicable process that honors the values and priorities of everyone involved.
Let me see if I understand this.
The neighbors had agreed to a plan designed collaboratively with a different developer.
The new developer wants a different plan than was initially agreed to.
The neighbors don’t like the plan for a number of reasons.
It would seem to me that there is a clear path forward here. I would recommend that the developer sit down with the neighbors and relevant city staff and start at the beginning to develop a proposal that would come the closest to meeting everyone’s needs.
I personally do not believe that this solution should involve removing these unique and valuable trees nor essentially confiscating a greenbelt regardless of original stated purpose. But I am looking at this as someone who has nothing to gain financially one way or the other but am primarily interested in a fair and amicable process that honors the values and priorities of everyone involved.
I agree with Tia.
I moved to Davis in 1995, and it sure has changed a lot. Developing the greenbelts. Wow.
In 2012 it was a very difficult decision to move away. But Davis wasn’t the same charming village any longer. And certainly not affordable for a middle income retired couple.
Here are a few of the nice small businesses that were mostly replaced by big box, corporate, nationwide chains:
Bogeys Books
Cafe Roma
Alphabet Moon My kids loved that store.( First place we went to buy anyone’s birthday gift.)
Is Sweetbriar Books still there?
La Esperanza
Green Planet (at least it was replaced by the wonderful Ciocolat)
Wingers Dept. Store
That music store with used CD’s and albums, near the co-op. Forgot its name.
The nature store, sorry I forgot its name.
Many others.
Now you have The Gap, Target, Starbucks, Chipotle, Panera, IHOP, Appelbees. Your charm is slowly fading away. Your affordability is almost gone for good.
And now you’re developing your wonderful greenbelts, too.
Sigh.
I agree with Tia.
I moved to Davis in 1995, and it sure has changed a lot. Developing the greenbelts. Wow.
In 2012 it was a very difficult decision to move away. But Davis wasn’t the same charming village any longer. And certainly not affordable for a middle income retired couple.
Here are a few of the nice small businesses that were mostly replaced by big box, corporate, nationwide chains:
Bogeys Books
Cafe Roma
Alphabet Moon My kids loved that store.( First place we went to buy anyone’s birthday gift.)
Is Sweetbriar Books still there?
La Esperanza
Green Planet (at least it was replaced by the wonderful Ciocolat)
Wingers Dept. Store
That music store with used CD’s and albums, near the co-op. Forgot its name.
The nature store, sorry I forgot its name.
Many others.
Now you have The Gap, Target, Starbucks, Chipotle, Panera, IHOP, Appelbees. Your charm is slowly fading away. Your affordability is almost gone for good.
And now you’re developing your wonderful greenbelts, too.
Sigh.