city council staff reportcity-council.cityofdavis.org/media/default/... · subject: council...

Staff Report January 3, 2005 TO: City Council FROM: Bill Emlen, Community Development Director Katherine Hess, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications RecommendationNo action is recommended for this City Council Workshop. The focus of this workshop is to present information and initiate dialogue on key issues related to the Covell Village land use and development proposal that have emerged during the public and Commission outreach to date. At its meeting of January 25, the Council will be begin formulating preliminary positions on key issues based on the information presented and dialogue that occurs during the workshop. Fiscal AnalysisFiscal impacts of the proposed development are assessed in the companion report from the Finance Director, reporting the fiscal analysis prepared by Bay Area Economics. Background and AnalysisAs the Council knows, applications for the Covell Village development proposal are currently being processed. The City’s current processing schedule calls for formal public hearings at the end of February with the goal of placing the proposal on the ballot in June 2005. There are many variables that could affect the City’s ability to adhere to the time schedule. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was released for public comment on December 10, 2004 with comments due by January 28, 2005. The extent and type of comments received on the draft EIR could be factors, as could the type of issues and nature of discussion that occurs at the January 8, 2005 workshop and the January 25 public meeting. If there was agreement on substantive issues that would require major changes to the project, it may become necessary to acknowledge that the June election date is not realistic. The fall back is the November 2005 election.

R:\CITYCLK\Agenda2005\08Jan05 Retreat\Covell Application SR.doc

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 Because of the tight schedule, there will be limited opportunity for the City Council to consider substantive changes to the project proposal when it comes to the final, legally required public hearing. This is why the City is holding these two preliminary meeting during the EIR review period. Nothing is binding at this point, and further changes may have to be considered with any new information that could emerge as part of continuing project review or the preparation of the final EIR. With that background, the purpose of this Workshop is two-fold: • To allow a substantive discussion among the Councilmembers on the major policy issues

generated by the proposal. • To provide an additional opportunity for public comment on the project applications; and No formal Council action will occur at this workshop. On January 25, the City Council will be asked to refine their perspectives on these components of the proposal. For obvious legal reasons, Council positions and consensus cannot be finalized until the Final EIR is available and formal public hearings are held. Staff does believe enough information is available from the Draft EIR, application materials, and public input to date to have substantive discussions and provide useful signals and direction on various aspects of the proposal. This staff report includes discussion of ten specific issue areas:

1. Project in context of City’s overall housing needs analysis; Density, housing mix, and phasing

2. Location and configuration (above/below the channel) 3. Schools 4. Fire Station 5. Parks & open space location, configuration, and maintenance 6. Development Agreement and fiscal implications 7. Agriculture mitigation 8. Affordable housing and middle-income component 9. Traffic, air quality, and noise 10. Retail components

The limited time for the workshop does not accommodate full Council discussion of all ten issues. Staff recommends that the first six main issues be scheduled to be addressed at the workshop, while the final four issues be discussed as time is available. The first issues and relate to the physical design of the project proposal, while the final issues can be addressed without (potentially) requiring redesign or modification of the site plan.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 Staff is proposing that the workshop be structured to allow for focused public comment on the specific issues identified in this report. The majority of the time would be reserved for City Council discussion of the applications. We recommend the public comments be interspersed within the workshop, by topic area. Our suggested outline is:

1. Staff will prepare five comment reservation cards for each of the six issue areas scheduled for discussion at the workshop (Density, geographic area, schools…).

2. At the beginning of the meeting, comment cards will be handed out to individuals wishing to speak, with a limit of one per person.

3. Each of the issue areas (35 minutes total) will be structured with a. Public comment from those holding reservation cards on the topic (2 minutes

each, 10 minutes) b. Staff presentation of the issue (5-10 minutes) c. City Council discussion (15-20 minutes)

4. At the end of the meeting, there will be time allotted for other members of the public to speak, followed by those who have spoken once but wish to discuss other topics.

As a reminder to the Council and the public, this workshop is focused upon the project components, most specifically the land use plan, and is not an opportunity for comment on the Draft EIR. Comments on the adequacy of the EIR should be made in writing to the Community Development Department by January 28, 2005, or orally at the Planning Commission hearing on January 12, 2005.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005

Project Description The project proposal contains 1,515 residential units and a 16-acre Village Center on 422 acres at the northwest corner of Pole Line Road and Covell Boulevard. The project would also include support features and public amenities including a School District site; a fire station site; land for non-profit uses including a nursery school, church, senior care facility, hospice, and community building; and substantial parks, greenbelt, and drainage/habitat areas. Residential uses are proposed to be predominantly single-family, including 185 age-restricted senior homes. There would be 407 multifamily units in mixed-income complexes, affordable housing land dedication sites, and live-work or apartment units in the Village Center. The Village Center would include retail, office, restaurant, hotel, and health club uses, plus a gas station and convenience market.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 Components of the applications have been reviewed by various city commissions during the past few months. Attached are the commission review schedule and the list of public comments that have been assigned to each of the commissions (Attachments 1 and 2). During the public and technical review, staff has identified the following issues as the major ones that would benefit from Council review at this time:

1. Density, housing mix, and phasing 2. Location and configuration (above/below the channel) 3. Schools 4. Fire Station 5. Parks & open space location, configuration, and maintenance 6. Development Agreement and fiscal implications 7. Agriculture mitigation 8. Affordable housing and middle-income component 9. Traffic, air quality, and noise 10. Retail components

Each issue will be addressed in sequence, with background, proposal, analysis, and recommendation. As previously noted, staff does not anticipate that the Council will discuss the final four issues in detail at the January 8 workshop. The analysis is being presented here primarily for the information of Council, Commissioners, and the public. Early in the review process, staff prepared Land Use Visions and Major Objectives for the Covell Village project applications. These Visions and Objectives were not intended to be policy documents for the City, but representations of staff interpretation of how existing city goals might be implemented through Covell Village. They are included as food for thought for the public and City Council (Attachment 3). No action by the City Council is anticipated. 1A. Project in context of City’s overall housing needs analysis; Density, housing mix, and phasing - Background Please note that the first and second issues (Density/housing and Location/configuration) are very interrelated. In many instances, decisions on project location and configuration would be weighed prior to discussion of project details such as density and housing mix. However, staff believes the City’s goals for housing mix, when articulated, will inform the determinations on development area. For that reason, the density issue is analyzed first, with project configuration immediately following. The City of Davis has provided support and encouragement to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) “Blueprint” project. This project is a regional effort to plan for land use and transportation changes that will preserve agricultural land and minimize harmful effects on the environment, particularly traffic and air quality.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 Under the preferred alternative for the Blueprint project, development at Medium Density Mixed Residential Intensity should have the following components: • 15% Low Density Residential (8 units/acre) • 45% Medium Density Residential (12 units/acre) • 25% Medium-high Density Residential (25 units/acre) • 10% Community/Neighborhood Commercial or Office It must be kept in mind that this is a generalized alternative at a regional level. There are many variables, including but not limited to, regional location, environmental constraints, local traffic issues, etc. that would effect what is the right density mix for a specific site. That said, it is appropriate to consider the blueprint alternative in the evaluation of the Covell Village site. In that context and when looking at it from a regional perspective, the proposed Covell Village location, being abutted on three sides by urban uses and partially by publicly owned lands on the remaining side, fits well with a key blueprint goal of reducing sprawl. The ready availability of urban infrastructure is an added bonus and leads staff to conclude that the site is a good candidate for pushing the density envelope, particularly when considering the proximity to UCD, which is a major generator of jobs and housing demand in the region. Related City policy goals include • Make decisions on City policy with an understanding of regional impacts. (General Plan

Vision 12) • Promote in each neighborhood a diversity of housing options that will enable people with

wide range of needs, economic levels, cultural identities and ages to live in Davis. (General Plan Vision 6)

A City Council subcommittee of Councilmembers Puntillo and Souza is currently evaluating mechanisms to implement the growth management target of approximately 250 residential units per year. Under the preliminary analysis for this effort, a moderate level of infill would be expected to generate in the range of 800 units from 2005-2015. The target growth rate would need approximately 1,400 units over the decade from developments such as the Covell Village, Signature inside-the-curve, and Con Agra sites. One of the issues for the subcommittee is phasing new development – especially affordable housing – with the fair-share requirements that will come during the next SACOG cycle (estimated to be 2006 through 2012). It appears that any building permits issued on or after January 1, 2006 will count toward these fair-share requirements, but final determinations have not been made by the State of California or SACOG. 1A. Density, housing mix, and phasing - Proposal The proposal includes 1,435 units on 232 residential acres, plus an additional 80 units in the 16-acre Village Center. Of the total units, 1,078 would be standard single-family attached or detached houses. There would be 289 apartment, 54 townhouse or condominium units, and 94 live/work or Village Center units.


Over 6,700 sf

4,700 to under 6,700 sf

Under 4,700 sfSingle-family

Townhouse

Village Center or Live/Work

Multifamily

Village Center orLive/WorkMultifamily

Townhouse

Under 4,700 sf

4,700 to under6,700 sfOver 6,700 sf

The 232 residential acres would contain 1,435 residential units. This equates to an average density of 6.2 units per residential acre, not counting the Village Center units. The average densities are approximately 14 units per gross acre for the multifamily parcels (303 units on 22 acres) and 5.4 units per gross acre for the single-family areas (1,132 units on 210 acres). In addition to the identified residential units, the institutional uses of the Senior Core facility and the hospice would accommodate 130 and 16 beds, respectively. As will be discussed more extensively later in this report, the school district has requested a residential underlying zoning for its 10-acre parcel. If developed for residential purposes, the parcel might accommodate 75-150 housing units. Depending upon the zoning standards and lot configuration, second units could be constructed on the single-family parcels. These are not guaranteed and have not been incorporated into the density calculations. Of the 1,078 single-family residential units, 185 (17%) are proposed to be age-restricted to seniors under homeowner association contract with Eskaton. The senior-only units would have a range of lot sizes but be in the generally small ranges. The senior-only lots would be clustered immediately north of the Village Center. The EIR for Covell Village includes two equal-weight alternatives: the 1,515-unit proposed project, and an alternative with 1,990 units. The goal of providing the alternatives was to give the City Council flexibility to adjust the project without re-initiating the environmental review. An option also analyzed in the EIR, but not at an equal weight level, is keeping the 1,515 requested units but constraining development to the area south of Channel A. Although not analyzed at an equal weight level, this variation does appear adequately covered under the broader equal weight alternatives in that it contains elements of each and thus could be considered without significant modification or recirculation of the EIR.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 The applicant is proposing a seven-year buildout for the single-family units. Multifamily housing and nonresidential uses would not have phasing requirements. It is also possible that the applicant would request the affordable or middle-income units to be exempt from phasing, depending upon the conclusions of the Council’s overall discussions on growth management. 1A. Density, housing mix, and phasing – Analysis The question of whether the proposal is dense enough is one that has been raised by staff, the Planning Commission, and members of the public. City policies do support a range of unit sizes in single-family subdivisions, and the applicant has worked to meet that goal. However, the proposal continues to show a development that is predominantly single-family, with a large number of large lots. Of greater concern to staff than the mix of single-family lots is the ratio of single-family homes to other housing types. The proposal contains over 70% single-family units. Staff is concerned about the low densities in the proposed project for several reasons: • Fewer units and larger lots are a less-efficient use of land. The City has long held the goal of

limiting conversion of agricultural land. A denser subdivision would provide the same number of housing units in a smaller footprint. The remaining land could be preserved for agricultural use, or be targeted for a future phase of development.

• Lower-density houses are farther apart. The northern half of the proposed project (above the channel) is well over a quarter-mile from the Village Center. Increasing distance decreases the likelihood that transit, bicycling, or walking will be effective transportation alternatives.

• New single-family homes, particularly those on large lots, are less likely to provide the housing at the affordability levels needed for the “workforce” housing that has been identified as a goal by the City Council.

• The applicant’s initial attempts to increase density have focused upon increasing the number of single-family homes on very small lots (under 4,000 square feet). Staff is concerned that the design constraints for such small parcels would be better addressed through clustered townhouse or condominium developments.

• It is possible that this development, if approved, will help set the tone for how the SACOG Blueprint goals are used to review development proposals. This is the opportunity for Davis to act as a model for the region.

Should the Council consider direction to increase the densities in the proposal, the following should be considered: • As will be discussed further with the fiscal analysis, the city’s current financial model

expects that larger lots with more expensive homes will be revenue-positive for the city, while more affordable housing is less likely to generate the revenues to pay for expected public service costs.

• The project proposal is generally consistent with the 67-76% single-family percentages of Evergreen, Mace Ranch, and Wildhorse. The applicant has raised the question of whether the community is prepared to accept a project different from other recent development in Davis.


Staff does note that the Aspen subdivision is approximately 50 percent multifamily and seems to be well-accepted by its residents and the remainder of the community. Given the current emphasis on infill and densification, it seems that any new large project should be more along the lines of the Aspen model as opposed to other referenced projects.

• It has been difficult to build condominiums because of liability concerns. This appears to be changing, based upon proposals being considered in Sacramento and elsewhere in the region.

At the request of Mayor Asmundson, the applicant has met several times with Mike McKeever, the new Executive Director of SACOG and shepherd of the Blueprint project. Mr. McKeever has stated that SACOG would support development on the Covell Village site as consistent with goals of concentrating development in areas with existing development and infrastructure. Density and design issues are still being evaluated by SACOG staff and the project applicant. The initial analysis from the Council subcommittee on growth management would anticipate approximately 30 units per year from infill, and 220 units per year from new greenfields development. The new development sites could include Covell Village, Con-Agra, Signature-inside-the-curve, or other parcels not being currently proposed for development. The first seven years of the 220 non-infill units per year could be accommodated through the Covell Village proposal with a seven-year buildout. The Council has not yet made a final determination on whether to exempt affordable, middle-income, or other targeted housing types from the 250/year goal. Final determination could affect the ultimate phasing of Covell Village. Commissioners and Councilmembers have expressed concerns over allocating the lion’s share of buildable lots to one development. Particularly over a period of 5-10 years, the potential impacts on the housing market have not been evaluated. At the same time, the City will need to consider the inefficiencies and community disruption that can come from an extended buildout, particularly if roadway improvements, parks, and schools are not provided with earlier phases. If densities and total units are significantly increased in Covell Village, one City option would be to extend the buildout period beyond the seven years currently proposed. Another option would be to maintain the unit totals currently proposed while reducing the physical area of the project. This would effectively increase densities while maintaining a buildout rate that would roughly correspond to the timeline for the current internal housing needs analysis, which extends through 2015. Remaining lands from this site, as well as other vacant sites such as Signature could then be reevaluated for future urban growth with the next Housing Needs cycle, which would presumably occur prior to 2015. If the City were to want to consider some housing on other sites prior to 2015, such as on Con-Agra or the PG&E Service Center, while maintaining the one percent growth rate parameter, further reduction in the site area and unit count for Covell Village would be necessary. See Attachment 4 for possible options when considering both the Con-Agra and Covell Village sites. The associated tables clearly illustrate the potential for reduced use of land resources with increased densities. What is less clear are potential downsides of a smaller project with a likely reduction in project amenities. In essence, certain benefits may be lost if the

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 entire Covell Village property is not masterplanned. How much this is weighted, relative to the primarily project objectives such as housing needs and protection of agricultural land, is clearly a key policy decision that will have to be made as the evaluation of this project evolves over the next few months. 1A. Density, housing mix, and phasing - Recommendation Staff continues to believe that the densities in the project proposal fall short of those envisioned by the Blueprint process. We also believe a higher density project would better embrace long term City goals and policies contained in the General Plan that call for a compact community surrounded by farmland. The project location is unique in that it has characteristics of both a Greenfield and infill site. It makes sense to maximize the opportunity under a full or reduced footprint alternative. We are hopeful that continued discussions with the applicant can identify necessary adjustments in project design that will increase densities without jeopardizing the attractive or environmental components of the subdivision. In the absences of specific redesign, staff suggests the City Council consider the following as general guidelines for the development: • A minimum of 25% of the units as townhouses, condominiums, or other ownership housing

in common-interest subdivisions. • A minimum of 25% of the units as multifamily apartments, in stand-alone complexes or as

part of the Village Center. • The remainder of the units to be single-family units in a range of lot sizes, distributed

throughout the development. 2A. Location and configuration - Background The southern portion of the site (below Channel A) was identified for urban development in the 1987 General Plan. The land was re-designated as “Agriculture” during the 2001 Update. The City Council has previously confirmed that this is the appropriate location to consider development to meet City housing needs. The site is bounded on three sides by urban development. Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road are arterial streets that are served by transit.


2B. Location and configuration - Proposal The existing Channel A runs east-west across the proposed project. The applicant is proposing to retain the channel while enhancing its value as habitat and a recreation/bicycle corridor. The submitted plans show the more intense uses are clustered in the southern portion of the project, transitioning to predominantly single-family uses in the northern portion. South of Channel A North of Channel A Acres 247 175 Residential Acres 121.8 110.4 Residential Units 977 538 Single-family 570 538 Multifamily 407 0 Park/Greenbelt 27.8 acres total

10-acre Neighborhood Park Two mini-parks

13.3 acres Three mini-parks

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 South of Channel A North of Channel A Non-residential Acres (other than parks/greenbelt)

33.8 5.3

Non-residential Uses (other than parks/greenbelt)

Village Center Senior Core Facility School District Site Pre-School Fire Station Site

Hospice

2C. Location and configuration - Analysis Locating more intense uses and the multifamily housing near the Pole Line / Covell intersection makes sense due to convenience to neighborhood shopping opportunities and transit routes. In general, planning principles call for placing higher-density housing nearer to employment centers, shopping, and transit routes than lower-density housing. However, staff (along with members of the public and Planning Commission) remains concerned over the distribution of housing types within the proposed development. This is discussed in greater detail in the previous Density section of the report.

One of the alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report is a “Reduced Acreage Alternative” with the same 1,515 dwelling units concentrated south of Channel A (See DEIR, page 5-10). This option would eliminate one-half of the Village Center as well as the school district site. The Draft EIR concluded that this Reduced Acreage Alternative is the “Environmentally Superior Alternative” because it would use less agricultural land and habitat and remove other potential impacts from the proposed project. The Open Space Commission has considered a recommendation that urban development be limited to the area south of the channel, but took no action at its meeting of December 6, 2004.

If development were allowed only in the southern portion, there would be 145 acres remaining within the area bounded predominantly by the Northstar subdivision, Wildhorse Golf Course, Con-Agra, and the City’s former landfill site. The land would have agricultural uses on the western half of its northern boundary. A topic of discussion at the Open Space Commission was whether or not the property would be viable for agricultural uses in the long term. Open Space Planner Mitch Sears has prepared a memorandum outlining a possible concept for small urban farms on this land (Attachment 5).

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 Limiting the development to the area south of Channel A would have the following advantages and disadvantages: Advantages Disadvantages • Reduces the amount of lost agricultural

land, from 422 acres to 247 acres• May provide opportunity for urban and

organic farms that could support the local agricultural industry as a whole

• Would require project redesign to increase density, possibly reducing housing costs

• If the area north of the channel was designated urban reserve, it would remain a future potential outlet for growth pressures. It would remain a less sprawling alternative to other outlying sites surrounding the City.

• If the area north of the channel were not made urban reserve, the applicant would be able to use mitigation requirements for the land south of Channel A to establish agricultural easements on the land north of the Channel; there would be a benefit to the developer by reducing the total amount of land that would have to be acquired for mitigation.

• The Channel A greenbelt/habitat may prove to be a better buffer between urban and other uses than that currently anticipated for the project, particularly for the area adjoining the former landfill and go-kart track.

• Reduces agricultural mitigation requirements commensurate with reduction in developed acreage; may preserve marginal farmland instead of large viable farmsites

• Long-term viability of the 145 acres is undetermined

• Maintaining the land as agricultural, particularly if the city were to pursue the urban farm concept, may require City contributions to oversight and start-up activities

• The city may wish to consider urban development on the northern portion at some future time. This may be precluded by regulatory provisions that are established now

• Project amenities may be reduced under a smaller project alternative, although if density is increased and unit yield is similar to the current proposal, staff would question just how much amenities would have to be reduced.

• The applicants have stated publicly that they will not go forward with the development if the entire site is not approved. This would not preclude another development interest from acquiring the site and entitlements (Assuming Measure J approval).

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 2D. Location and configuration - Recommendation As is previously discussed in the Density section of this staff report, staff is continuing to work with the applicant on the goals of increasing density and mix of housing types within Covell Village. At this time, staff is not prepared to recommend that the south-of-channel option be identified as the preferred alternative. Staff does recommend that the option remain as a serious possibility in the event that desired project changes are not forthcoming. The south of channel alternative, if overall unit counts are retained, would facilitate both a higher density and more compact project. The merits of this, particularly from a new urbanist perspective, cannot be underestimated. It might also be argued that a more compact project increases consistency with the General Plan and may be more able to solicit voter support under the Measure J election. While some amenities may be lost, it must also be considered that of these amenities most primarily benefit future project residents but have limited value to the average citizen elsewhere in Davis. 3A. Schools - BackgroundAs the Covell Village applications have been processed, City Council members have been very clear that schools need to be provided to serve the residents of the subdivision and the Davis Joint Unified School District needs to be provided the resources to provide the necessary schools. State law generally limits the ability of a local government to collect impact fees for schools. Technically, the City Council does not have the legal ability to deny a development project because of school impacts, provided the impact fees are paid in accordance with state standards. This has been a topic of concern for the District as new development proposals have been considered over the past few years. 3B. Schools - Proposal Covell Village Partners have entered into an agreement with the Davis Joint Unified School District addressing the impacts from the residential development. The agreement (Attachment 6) provides that the project will include: • A 10-acre parcel to be transferred to the District • One million dollars that may be used for constructing a school on the District parcel • Multiple assessment districts on the residential units for school funding • Over four million dollars for purchase of Nugget Fields The fields are to be used for

community recreation purposes in perpetuity The District has agreed that these provisions will provide full mitigation for the school impacts of the proposed project. The Covell Village EIR is analyzing the school district site as an elementary school, which has the higher traffic generation rate. District staff has asked city staff for as much flexibility as possible in the zoning for the District parcel, including an underlying zoning for residential development. The applicant notes that the Nugget Fields site in Wildhorse has similar zoning that would accommodate residential uses. A public school would be a permitted use for the property.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 3C. Schools - AnalysisAt this time, the District cannot say whether the District parcel would be developed as an elementary school, a satellite high school, or other District use. The District also cannot specify whether the children in Covell Village will be attending a neighborhood school or one of the existing elementary schools south of Covell Boulevard. Final determination on use of the property may not be made for several years after the initial residential development. Residents of Covell Village will be required to pay unusual levels of Community Facilities taxes from the beginning of the development (estimated at approximately 70 cents per square foot per year). As the Council knows, there have been concerns expressed in other areas of town when anticipated school facilities have not been built. Staff has attempted to clarify that the “Davis Joint School District Site” will not be automatically be developed as a neighborhood elementary school, but this may be insufficient to quell community expectations. Staff has assumed that compliance with the District agreement will be a required component of the Development Agreement for Covell Village. Staff does not believe that the City has the ability to “require” the District to develop a school on its parcel. The City Council does have the ability to zone the property for public-semipublic use, as was done most recently for Harper Junior High School. Should the District wish to pursue other development on the site, appropriate public and environmental review would be required. Decisions will be made by the District considering the need for neighborhood or community school facilities and competing District priorities for capital funds. 3D. Schools - RecommendationBecause the City cannot require development of a school on the District parcel, staff is concerned that establishing school-only zoning for the property may be misleading to the community. We recommend that all regulatory documents for Covell Village, including the Measure J “baseline project features,” clearly state that the site may become a school but other development would also be permitted. It should be noted that if a school is not built, the district will be holding an asset of significant value. Staff believes the terms of agreement between the school district and applicant, which is tentative until a project is approved, should be revisited if a school is not determined to be necessary at this site. Consideration should be made to making the 10-acre property a shared asset for some broader community benefit, such as a local employee housing site. 4A. Fire Station – Background The City of Davis currently has three fire stations, one each in central, south, and west Davis. Large areas of northern Davis are outside the five-minute response time established as a General Plan policy target. The City has reserved about a third of the $3.5 million necessary to construct and equip a fourth fire station. The fourth station would improve response times and provide system-wide benefits as the number of simultaneous calls increases. The City has not identified

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 funds for the $1.8 million annual cost of operating another station. The Fire Department is also seeking a site for a training facility. No funds have been identified for construction or operation of the training facility. 4B. Fire Station – Proposal Covell Village Partners is proposing to give the City a 1.7-acre parcel for use as a fire station. This would accommodate a full-service station but not the training facility requested by the Fire Department. The applicant is not proposing any specific contribution to the cost of building or operating the station, but notes that anticipated capital and property tax contributions from the development will be sufficient to cover the project’s fair share of Fire Department costs. The Draft EIR analyzed the impacts of the proposed project on public facilities, including fire services. The EIR made two main conclusions: • Costs of providing fire services to the project can be mitigated if the City Council makes a

determination that sufficient funds are available – for the project or from other sources – to maintain acceptable service ratios (currently 0.67 firefighters per 1,000 residents).

• Impacts of placing additional residents outside the five-minute response time are significant and unavoidable because the City does not have the funds allocated for building and staffing the station.

4C. Fire Station – Analysis As is noted in the Fiscal Analysis report prepared by the Finance Director, the revenues from the Covell Village project – at buildout – will likely be sufficient to cover the project’s “share “ of fire service costs plus provide some additional discretionary revenue toward funding of the full costs for a fire station. This assumes that other City services are not increased as City population increases. 4D. Fire Station – Recommendation Staff is making the following preliminary recommendation, pending further review by affected Departments and the City Manager’s Office:

1. The City should strongly pursue a Development Agreement with provisions requiring the applicant to construct and equip the fire station. The City would contribute the funds that it has allocated, and provide reimbursement to the developers as public safety impact fees are collected from any new development.

2. Negotiate an up-front subsidy for initial staffing of the fourth fire station. The amount and term would be stipulated in the Development Agreement.

5A. Parks and Open Space – Background The City has several basic standards for parks and greenbelts in new development areas: • Ten percent of residential land should be greenbelt; • Parkland should be provided at a ratio of five acres per thousand residents • A neighborhood park should be within 3/8 mile of every residential unit

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 • A community park should be within 1½ mile of every residential unit. The General Plan identifies greenbelts as “Neighborhood open space corridors” with the intent of providing safe and secure linear parkways and connectors close to residences as alternatives to biking or walking on streets. Generally, greenbelts are improved by the developer concurrently with the residential development. Parkland is dedicated to the City without improvements. The City then constructs the parks as funds become available. 5B. Parks and Open Space – Proposal The Covell Village proposal includes a central 10.7 acre park, and five miniparks, totaling 19.3 acres of parkland. Greenbelts are provided through a “linear green” in the eastern portion of the project, a traditional greenbelt through the center of the site, and smaller green areas. Dimensions of the greenbelts have not been established. An exhibit showing proposed park and greenbelt areas is included as Figure 3-9 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report . The application also includes extensive habitat/wetland areas at the north edge of the project and running along the Channel A corridor. This 66 acres is not included in the parkland or greenbelt calculations. DEIR Figure 4.12-1 and the preceding text evaluate the proposal’s compliance with the city’s parkland and greenbelt standards. The proposal has the following exceptions from standard: • The amount of parkland is slightly below the City’s numeric requirements, while the

proposed greenbelt exceeds city requirements only if the width and configuration are adequate.

• Residential areas in the southern multifamily site and the northeast corner of the site would be farther than 3/8 mile from a neighborhood park.

The applicant has not proposed any deviations from standard city practice in timing or construction of parks and greenbelts. 5C. Parks and Open Space – Analysis The City Council may determine that the amount and configuration of parkland and greenbelt is generally consistent with City standards. This may be reasonable, especially given the additional habitat/wetland included in the site plan. Staff has three primary concerns with the proposal as submitted to the City:

1. The greenbelts in particular are noncontiguous and have limited benefit as transportation. The “linear green” is interrupted by streets every 250’ or so. Other “greenbelt” areas, such as the pieces in the northeast and central western areas of the site, lack connectivity with other green areas. The contiguous greenbelt appears unacceptably narrow, and does not integrate with the bicycle connection under Covell Boulevard. The discontinuous


greenbelts and miniparks will increase City maintenance costs while reducing the usability of the green spaces.

2. Although there has been discussion of early park improvement by the applicant, it has not been part of the formal proposal. As the Council knows, delaying park improvements beyond residential development can be frustrating for both residents and the City.

3. There is limited green space in the southwest corner, which is the densest area of the project. This is an area outside the 3/8 mile distance from the neighborhood park, and the location where the central greenbelt is the narrowest or nonexistent.

The Recreation and Park Commission reviewed the park and greenbelt components of the proposal in October. The Commission made the following determinations:

1. That the project contributes to the Parks and Recreation system for the City of Davis and recommending 1) that the project include community-serving recreation uses which could include additional active amenities 2) there be an opportunity for the City to discuss community needs for the privately-owned community building and 3) an analysis be completed on the impact on existing recreational facilities and programs (e.g. athletic fields, pools, recreation programs) if the project does not include recreational facilities.

2. That the system proposed by the developer makes appropriate connections with the remainder of the city system.

3. That the project should include developer construction and maintenance of parks and greenbelts concurrently with residential development.

4. Retain the linear green as recommended by the developer. 5. That the central north-south greenbelt be widened to a minimum of 100 feet, with a

greater width adjacent to the multifamily and high-density areas. 6. That staff and developers work together to design the central north-south greenbelt to

minimize maintenance while providing a sense of openness. 7. That the project include community-serving recreation uses.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 5D. Parks and Open Space – Recommendation Consistent with the recommendations of the Recreation and Parks Commission, staff recommends that

1. That the Development Agreement require developer construction and maintenance of parks and greenbelts concurrently with residential development.

2. That the central north-south greenbelt be widened to a minimum of 100 feet, with a greater width adjacent to the multifamily and high-density areas.

3. That the project contribute to community-wide recreational amenities Different from the recommendations of the Recreation and Parks Commission, staff recommends the following:

4. That greenbelt credit be granted only for areas that are part of a connected greenway system. This may include portions of the wildlife/habitat area in the center or north of the project. Other green spaces, including the “linear green” will be allowed only if the developer provides an endowment or similar mechanism for long-term maintenance.

5. That the merits of the linear green be critically evaluated against its lack of functionality as a usable open space or a circulation corridor. Staff would prefer the space be reconfigured with other open space and park areas to be more functional and to create more efficient future maintenance.

6A Development Agreement - Background A Development Agreement is a contract between a property owner and a local government. The Development Agreement gives the property owner a guaranteed right to develop the property in accordance with the approved plans – the jurisdiction could not subsequently decide to downzone the property, for example. Development Agreements may also provide protection from new fees or changes in development standards, if so negotiated. Entering into a Development Agreement is voluntary on the part of the jurisdiction and the applicant. Property owners may offer incentives to the jurisdiction in order to obtain the protections of the Agreement. Previous Development Agreements in Davis have called for early development of park sites, traffic and noise mitigation for adjacent neighborhoods, offsite bikeway improvements, and environmental amenities. There is no “nexus” requirement for provisions of a Development Agreement. 6B. Development Agreement – Proposal The applicant is proposing a Development Agreement that allows a seven-year buildout of the project. The applicant views the Covell pedestrian undercrossing, habitat areas, drainage channel enhancements, the hospice site, the fire station site and the like as broader community benefits associated with their project proposal. Staff has suggested that the Development Agreement include City benefits such as provisions for the fourth fire station and contribution for downtown parking but the applicant has not agreed to include them as development agreement provisions (Attachment 7).

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 6C. Development Agreement – Analysis Should this project be approved by the City Council and the voters, it will be a significant entitlement right for the property owners. It essentially would give them the right to develop this site over a specified period of time. Considering the lack of available vacant land in town now and likely to continue into the future, the value of the privilege to develop the property cannot be overstated. The applicants have attempted to assemble an amenity package that creates a desirable community. Staff applauds them for their efforts and commitment. That said, there are many large developments of this type that provide similar type of amenities. Given the background cited above, the City should expect exceptional benefits for the value of the entitlements requested. Examples of the types of benefits/features provided by similar projects in other cities include contribution to community-serving recreational programs or facilities, construction of school and public safety facilities, assistance to public safety programs, public art, and other community-wide benefits. The bottom line is that significant community needs should be addressed with a project of this type, particularly under the current circumstances in the City where there is so little land available for development and there is a high value to long term entitlement assurances. Staff does not believe the current development agreement proposal by the applicants is comprehensive enough in addressing those needs or the costs the City would assume to allow this project. Reiterated in the recommendation section are additional areas that should be addressed and negotiated in the Development Agreement. 6D. Development Agreement – Recommendation The following recommendations are made elsewhere in this report:

1. Construction and equipment for the fire station. 2. An up-front subsidy for initial staffing the fire station. 3. A significant financial commitment toward the construction of a downtown parking

structure. 4. Developer construction of parks and greenbelts concurrently with residential

development. 5. Contribution to community-serving recreation uses. 6. Developer to cover maintenance costs of all new parks, greenbelts, street trees, and

greenstreets for two years. 7. An endowment for the maintenance of the habitat areas. 8. Establish a reasonable limit on the number of units eligible for permit per year so as to

not over monopolize city-wide allocations under the City’s future Growth Management Ordinance.

9. Agreement to fully comply with whatever middle income inclusionary housing standards emerge as a result of the process that is currently ongoing.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 7A. Agriculture Mitigation – Background As part of its agricultural preservation ordinance, the City requires any agricultural land that is converted to urban use be mitigated through the protection of additional agricultural land near the City. The standard mitigation requirement is 2:1 – twice as many acres must be protected as are converted. A reduced number of acres may be approved as mitigation if the land is immediately adjacent to the edge of the City or especially valuable for another purpose. Mitigation land is expected to be protected through covenants or public ownership for agricultural purposes in perpetuity. Standards for mitigation eligibility and approval requirements are established in the City’s Farmland Preservation Ordinance. In general, the City’s agricultural preservation polices and open space acquisition program are under the review of the Open Space Planner and Open Space Commission. 7B. Agriculture Mitigation – Proposal The applicant is proposing 2:1 mitigation, primarily in the area directly north of the project site (Attachment 8). The land to be protected is equivalent-to-better than the subject site, depending upon the method of analysis. The applicant’s proposal includes two components that have not been explicitly addressed in previous agricultural mitigation proposals:

1. That the identified mitigation lands will be guaranteed only if all project entitlements, including Measure J approval, before April 2005; and

2. That a portion of the mitigation lands will be reserved for homesites, as allowed within agricultural zoning in Yolo County.

At the Open Space Commission meeting in December, Covell Village representatives stated that the April 2005 date was not fixed. No further clarification has been submitted. 7C. Agriculture Mitigation – Analysis As the Council knows, the earliest possible date for Measure J action on the applications is June 2005. Even that date is optimistic. Therefore, as proposed, the applicant is not committing to reserving the mitigation parcels shown in Attachment 8. This is especially problematic because of the City’s recently-adopted goals of adjacent mitigation lands, and because the public should have mitigation sites clearly identified as the applications go through public hearing. Under the provisions of the Agricultural mitigation approved by the City of Woodland for the Spring Lake area, up to two homes may be built per 80-acre parcel on agricultural mitigation land. This is proving problematic for preserving mitigation lands as agricultural rather than ranchettes. The applicant’s proposal to allow homesites on the mitigation lands may cause similar problems.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 7D. Agriculture Mitigation – Recommendation Staff and the Open Space Commission make the following primary recommendations:

1. That the application presented to the Planning Commission and City Council explicitly identify the sites for agricultural mitigation. If the locations are not in the proposed location, at the northern edge of the project, the locations shall be reviewed by the Open Space Commission at a public hearing before a determination is made on whether the mitigation sites are acceptable to the City.

2. That no provision for homesites on the mitigation lands be approved without a determination by the City that the homesites do not reduce the likelihood that the land can be used for active agriculture.

8A. Affordable housing and middle-income component - Background The City has required affordable housing as part of new developments for several decades. Current requirements call for a specified percentage of new units to be affordable to households with very low, low, or moderate incomes. Affordable housing requirements for rental projects may be met through on-site affordable apartments or through land dedication. In summary, affordable housing requirements apply to 35% of market apartments and 25% of market for-sale homes. The Affordable Housing Task Force and Social Services Commission have recommended changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance that are scheduled for Council review within the next month. Recently, the City Council has established a goal of requiring additional units be targeted to “middle” income households, earning under $100,000 per year. Recent staff and consultant analysis has shown that this income group is not being served by the recent development in Davis. The Council’s goal is 25 percent of for-sale units as middle-income housing. Staff is in the process of preparing the necessary ordinances and resolutions for formal adoption. 8B. Affordable housing and middle-income component - Proposal The applicant is proposing an affordable housing package composed of for-sale affordable and middle-income homes, rent- and income-restricted apartments, and land dedication to the City of Davis (Attachment 9). Specific components include: • 95 units to be sold to low- and moderate-income households (not exceeding 120 percent of

area median household income). At this point, it is not anticipated that any of these will be the senior-only units.

• 190 units to be sold to middle-income households (not exceeding 160 percent of City of Davis median family income). At this point, it is not anticipated that any of these will be the senior-only units.

• Dedication of 8.1 acres of land to the City of Davis for multifamily affordable housing. As an option to land dedication, the developer would build the apartments and phase in affordability over the buildout term of the project. The units would revert to market after 25 years.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 • Affordable apartments equivalent to 33 beds for very-low income individuals or households

and 83 beds for low income individuals or households. The affordable apartments will be owned by CHOC, with the very-low income apartments reserved for mentally ill clients of YCCC (Yolo Community Care Continuum).

• Affordable housing requirements for the live-work, Village Center, and co-housing components to be negotiated separately, using the standards for projects of the applicable size.

The applicant is proposing sell the for-sale affordable and middle-income units at market value and assist buyers of the affordable and with silent second loans of $50-100,000. The units will be subject to resale restrictions and limited appreciation from the original market value. The affordable housing proposal is scheduled for review by the Social Services Commission on January 10, 2005. Recommendations of the Commission will be transmitted to the City Council for consideration during its meeting of January 25. 8C. Affordable housing and middle-income component - Analysis The applicant’s proposal requests a number of significant deviations from the City’s standard affordable housing requirements and from the assumptions used in the middle income analysis. Major deviations include: • Income limits for middle-income households based upon Davis family median income, rather

than the median household income for Yolo County. This would include households with incomes up to $120,000 per year, rather than the $96k? previously envisioned. Allowable house prices would be correspondingly higher.

• Housing cost ratios of up to 40% of income for the middle-income buyers, rather than the 35% anticipated in the middle-income analysis and included in the draft amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Allowable house prices would be correspondingly higher.

• Resale restrictions for the moderate- and middle-income units to be based upon the initial market value of the unit, plus the value of capital improvements that trigger increased assessments for the property. The result would be resale prices 10-30+% higher than if future price restrictions were based upon the original affordable housing cost. Resale restrictions would be waived if a household remains in the home for 15 years.

• Very-low income units in the apartment complexes would be reserved for YCCC clients. The applicant may be proposing that the affordable rents for these units would be based upon the incomes of each person in an apartment rather than aggregated within a household.

• If the alternative to land dedication is chosen by the City, the housing would not be affordable in perpetuity.

• Separate calculation of the affordable housing obligation for Village Center, live-work, and cohousing units may result in few or no affordable units if individual projects are eligible for reduced requirements, in-lieu fees, or exemption due to their small size.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 8D. Affordable housing and middle-income component - Recommendation Pending review by the Social Services Commission and final verification of unit counts and numeric requirements, staff’s preliminary recommendation would be to reject the deviations listed in the previous section. For the most part, they would have the effect of increasing housing cost and eligible incomes for the moderate- or middle-income households, while eroding permanent affordability. For the very-low income apartments, we believe that this scarce resource should be made available to the general public rather than reserved for a targeted special need. Other proposed deviations, although less important than those cited above, may have merit and are recommended for consideration. These include: • Allowing rents for the affordable apartments to be adjusted upward to reflect reductions in

utility bills that are anticipated beyond Title 24 standard. • Possibly, developer construction instead of land dedication to the city. Staff does not believe

that permanent affordability can be negotiable, however. • Possibly, calculation of the number of affordable apartments based upon percentage of

square footage, rather than of apartments. This may allow the city to target a greater number of single individuals and small households for the affordable units, while the market units have the more typical three- and four-bedrooms.

Staff recommends that the low/mod housing and the middle-income housing requirements be incorporate as explicit components of the Development Agreement. It is likely that the middle-income ordinances will not be formally adopted at the time of action on Covell Village. 9A. Traffic, air quality, and noise – Background The Covell Village site is at the northwest corner of Pole Line Road and Covell Boulevard. Covell Boulevard is a 4-lane major arterial, while Pole Line Road is a two lane minor arterial. The City has previously made the determinations that Pole Line (south of Covell) and Covell will not be widened even if warranted by traffic level-of-service analysis. These determinations are incorporated into the traffic and circulation chapter of the General Plan. Currently, the intersections adjacent to the Covell Village site operate at acceptable levels of service. This is expected to change in the future, with or without the Covell Village project. The Covell Boulevard / L Street and Pole Line Road/Picasso intersections are projected to operate at a peak hour Level-of-Service F in 2015 because of the projected difficulty in entering the intersection from the side street stop. (See Draft EIR, Table 4.4-11) Davis is in an area that sometimes exceeds state or federal standards for ozone and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). The Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District has established thresholds to determine whether increased emissions are significant.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 9B. Traffic, air quality, and noise – Proposal Covell Village Partners are proposing major reconfiguration of Pole Line Road and Covell Boulevard as part of the project application. Pole Line Road would remain at two lanes, with bicycle lanes. The intersections with Moore, Donner, and Picasso would utilize one-lane roundabouts as traffic control devices. Covell Boulevard would be reconfigured to a couplet, with two lanes in each direction (plus bicycle lanes) and a 90-foot wide median. The intent of the median is to allow left turns to and from Oak Tree Plaza or from Covell Village that require crossing only two lanes of traffic at a time. The applicant is also proposing a bicycle/pedestrian tunnel under Covell Boulevard, connecting Oak Tree Plaza with the Village Center. As part of the environmental package for the project, the applicant is proposing the following components that would have traffic or air quality benefits:

1. Requirement that each house be provided with a Davis Energy Group Nightbreeze ventilation system, or equivalent.

2. Insulation for all hot water pipes. 3. Certified Duct testing for heating and cooling ducts. 4. Conduit for photoelectric arrays on garages. 5. Operable skylights are encouraged. 6. Provisions for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles including charging outlets in

garages, an area reserved for NEVs in the parking lot of the commercial Village Center, and provisions to allow NEVs in the grade-separated crossings under Pole Line Road, Covell Boulevard, and Anderson Road/railroad tracks.

7. Assessments on property owners in the development to provide funding for Unitrans services to and from Covell Village. The program would allow residents and employees of the development to ride the buses with no additional charge upon boarding. The assessments and program would last for a period of seven years.

Details and, in some instances, measurable benefits of the proposal have not been established at this stage in the project review. The Draft EIR contains mitigation measures requiring details of the air-quality and energy-saving components of the project be established at the final Planned Development phase, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 9C. Traffic, air quality, and noise – Analysis The Draft EIR concludes that the additional vehicle trips from the project proposal would have significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic and air quality. These include: • Impacts to segments of Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road. Although these impacts could

be reduced by road widening, the City has previously determined that this will not occur. • Emissions of exhaust and particulate matter from construction activities • Emissions from vehicle trips to and from the project site • Long-term air quality impacts from the proposed project combined with existing and future

developments.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 Additional impacts on traffic and/or noise would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the following: • Construction of a signal or roundabout at Pole Line/Picasso. A signal would be required for

the High Density Alternative, or to mitigate cumulative (2015) impacts. A roundabout would be required at Pole Line/Moore and Pole Line/Donner to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.

• Construction of a signal at Covell/L Street. A separate left turn lane would be required for the High Density Alternative.

• Widening Pole Line Road north of Covell Boulevard to 4 lanes, under either alternative, to meet acceptable levels of service for roadway segments. This segment is anticipated to operate at LOS F in 2015, with or without the Covell Village project.

• Construction management plans and standards to limit noise and traffic impact from construction activity

• Replacing the L Street pavement from Eighth Street to Covell with rubberized asphalt, or taking equivalent action, to reduce traffic noise in existing residences.

• Future acoustical studies with each phase of the project to ensure that minimize noise effects on residents from traffic and the Blue Max go-kart club.

Although the impacts to air quality cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the Draft EIR does make a series of recommendations for measure that will reduce the project’s impacts. These include provisions for electric vehicle charging outlets, prohibition of wood-burning fireplaces, and energy-efficient lighting and process systems. 9D. Traffic, air quality, and noise – Recommendation City Engineers have concluded that roundabouts will not work on Pole Line Road if it is widened to four lanes. Staff has the following preliminary recommendation, pending review and comment by the Safety Advisory and Natural Resources Commissions:

1. That the City determine that it will not widen Pole Line Road north of Covell Boulevard to four lanes. One option is a determination that traffic impacts are acceptable to maintain the two-lane configuration on Pole Line Road.

10A. Retail components – Background Maintaining the Core Area as the City’s prime retail and entertainment district has been a key City policy for decades. The City and its Redevelopment Agency have worked with private businesses and property owners to provide capital improvements and assistance to keep the downtown healthy. The City also has goals of providing convenient shopping to meet residents’ daily needs in attractive centers near their homes. Recently, the City has also begun exploring options for additional community-serving retail. Target Stores is expected to submit applications for a 126,000 square-foot store on Second Street. Lewis Communities has submitted a pre-application for the Con-Agra site that includes 25 acres for community retail.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 10B. Retail components – Proposal The Covell Village proposal includes a 16-acre “Village Center” at the southeast corner of the site, across Covell Boulevard from Oak Tree Plaza. The Village Center is proposed to include the following components:

Land Use Type Units Retail 58,200 square feet Office 43,300 SF Live/Work Residence 20 units Apartments 60 units Church 9,700 SF Health Club 30,000 SF Meeting 11,300 SF Daycare 2,800 SF Hotel 38,655 SF (58 rooms) Major Restaurant 6,000 SF Gas Station w/ Market 3,600 SF

The non-residential components of the Covell Village proposal have been reviewed several times by the Business and Economic Development Commission. On December 30, 2004, the BEDC adopted a subcommittee recommendation (Attachment 10) The Business and Economic Development Commission expressed support for the type, size, and timing of non-residential uses proposed, including an extended stay hotel, one full-service restaurant, the gas station, and the health club. 10C. Retail components – Analysis Providing non-residential uses in a new subdivision has several advantages: • Providing shopping or employment opportunities near residential uses can build a sense of

community and reduce vehicle trips into and out of the subdivision. • Generally, non-residential uses are projected to provide revenues to the City of Davis. The

extent depends on whether any retail sales would have otherwise been captured by Davis merchants, the extent that the land is occupied by entities that do not pay property or other taxes, and the costs of public services to serve the development.

However, any non-residential peripheral development should be evaluated in light of city desires to preserve the strength of the downtown and existing neighborhood centers. This is particularly important if the location has advantages such as convenient parking, good access to major roads, and an attractive design. It is expected that the Village Center will have all three of these advantages.

City Council Staff Report Subject: Council Workshop – Covell Village Applications January 5, 2005 10D. Retail components – Recommendation Staff recommends that the City continue to scrutinize the nonresidential uses for competition with the downtown Core Area or other neighborhood centers. Broad-level review should occur at this General Plan and prezoning stage, while more specific review of individual uses or buildings should occur at the time of tentative subdivision map, final planned development, or conditional use permit. Attachments1. Commission review schedule 2. Public comments “assigned” to the Commissions 3. Staff-generated Land Use Visions and Major Objectives 4. Preliminary Analysis of Alternative Uses, Covell Village and Con-Agra sites 5. Memorandum on agricultural possibilities in northern portion of site 6. School district MOU 7. Development Agreement correspondence 8. Agricultural mitigation proposal 9. Affordable housing proposal 10. BEDC recommendation on Village Center uses 11. Minutes for Commission review of Covell Village proposal

Covell Village Development Application Processing Timeline subject to adjustment based upon application readiness and public input Time period CEQA Process Policy Review Process June 30, 2004 Public scoping meeting

for EIR

July 28

Joint City Council / Planning Commission workshop on project

September 29 Planning Commission forum to solicit public input on proposal

October and November

Focused Commission meetings on specific project issues - Tree Commission October 21 - Recreation and Parks Commission October 21 - Business and Economic Development

Commission October 25 - Planning Commission October 27 - Open Space Commission November 1 - Safety Advisory Commission, November 4 - Senior Citizen Commission, November 9 - Natural Resources Commission, November 22 - Open Space Commission December 6 - Senior Citizen Commission December 9 - Business and Economic Development

Commission December 20

December 10 DEIR released January 2005 Additional review by the Social Services

Commission, Open Space Commission, Safety Advisory Commission, Natural Resources Commission, Finance and Budget Commission, and possibly others.

January 12, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing on DEIR

January 28 DEIR comment period ends

February 21 Final EIR released February 23 Joint Planning Commission - City Council presentation EIR and

Planning / Policy analysis and recommendations February 23 Planning Commission hearing March 1 City Council hearing June 2005 Measure J election

1/5/05 R:\CITYCLK\Agenda2005\08Jan05 Retreat\Covell App Commission Review Schedule-Att1.doc

Covell Village Applications Public / Commission / Council Issues and Review Assignments

Issue Review Assignment City Services and Finances Financial impacts to City; making sure all costs are borne by the development itself; potential for increased taxes for remainder of City; whether “break-even” is enough or the City should be better off financially

Bay Area Economics consulting firm is preparing analysis of ongoing and capital impacts on City of Davis. Fiscal analyses will be reviewed by Finance and Budget Commission

Police services to accommodate increased area and population; controlling crime within/from development

Fiscal analyses will be reviewed by Finance and Budget Commission. Adequacy of public services will be addressed in EIR

Economic growth based upon non-renewable uses like open land

Business and Economic Development Commission will be reviewing Covell Village proposal, particularly non-residential components, for impacts on City economy

How can we ensure that public facilities and school sites will be delivered?

City Council has review and approval of Development Agreement

How will we build and maintain all that green space?

Fiscal Analysis underway; City Council will have approval decision on Development Agreement

Optimal size of fire station; need for fire station compared to improved ambulance service; City ability to fund construction and operation of fire station

Project proposal includes 1.7-acre dedication. Fiscal analyses will be reviewed by Finance and Budget Commission. City Council will be decision maker on Development Agreement provisions, including size of fire station site.

Traffic and Circulation Traffic; impacts from vehicles and from commercial component (Pole Line, Covell, F, L, and J); trucks along F Street. Routes for residents to get downtown, UCD, and employment locations. Impact on freeway interchanges and burden on existing commuters

Traffic impacts and mitigation measures will be addressed in the EIR. The Safety Advisory Commission will be reviewing the proposed redesign of Pole Line Road and Covell Boulevard

Capacity of the proposed traffic circles on Pole Line Road and their ability to handle traffic from this project and Spring Lake in Woodland; potential that this project would assist in slowing traffic on Pole Line Road

Traffic impacts and mitigation measures will be addressed in the EIR. The Safety Advisory Commission will be reviewing the proposed redesign of Pole Line Road and Covell Boulevard

WORKING DRAFT – December, 2004


Issue Review Assignment Potential that project would decrease commute trips from other areas

Traffic assumptions for in- and out-commuting will be included in EIR. The analysis does not assume a reduction in overall commute trips from the project.

Timing of traffic studies when schools are in session; including impacts of new junior high school and Spring Lake project

Traffic studies are based upon measurements taken in spring or fall, not summer. Traffic analysis assumptions include junior high school and Spring Lake

Air quality and noise impacts from traffic Traffic impacts and mitigation measures will be addressed in the EIR. Natural Resources Commission will evaluate air quality implications from transportation issues

Potential for at-grade vehicle crossing of railroad tracks at Grande avenue

Safety Advisory and Open Space Commissions will be looking at desired locations for east-west bicycle connections. Safety Advisory Commission will be looking at vehicle connections for project and surrounding areas

Assumptions for bicycle and transit use; accommodations for alternative transportation modes within the project; mechanisms for discouraging vehicle trips by residents

EIR will evaluate projected automobile and other trips; to be reviewed by Public Works Department and Safety Advisory Commission. Natural Resources Commission to review energy conservation features of project proposal

Children’s routes to schools and other destinations; pedestrian and bicycle connections to and through project

EIR will evaluate bicycle connections within and to project site; Safety Advisory Commission will evaluate connections to existing routes and neighborhoods

Need to know when mitigation measures are required in relationship to project phasing; whether mitigation measures will be effective

EIR should link mitigation requirements to development thresholds

Grid instead of cul-de-sac pattern Safety Advisory Commission will address overall street pattern and safety for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.


Issue Review Assignment Water and Other Utilities Water quality and quantity; impacts on the water table; costs of providing surface water; capacity of deep aquifer and relationship to UCD and Woodland projects; ability to withstand severe drought; source of water for habitat areas

Public Works Department will be preparing Water Supply Assessment for project proposal, to be incorporated into EIR. Natural Resources Commission will be reviewing Water Supply Assessment.

Capacity of wastewater treatment plan; costs of expansion and cost to existing residents

EIR will determine whether treatment plant has capacity to serve project. Fiscal analysis will include capital and operating costs for wastewater facilities

Storm drainage for project, including habitat and bike tunnels; costs of maintenance

EIR will analyze adequacy of storm drainage proposal and capacity of current system to serve project. Fiscal analysis will include capital and operating costs for storm drainage facilities. Natural Resources Commission will review storm drainage system and wetlands.

Provision of infrastructure to provide needed services

EIR to assess services and facilities needed; fiscal analysis to assess costs and revenues

Amount of project site within flood plain; whether residents will be required to purchase flood insurance; ability for Covell Village to improve flood control for other areas of community

EIR to assess storm drainage from project and impacts on surrounding areas

Housing Type, Affordability, Distribution, and Timing Type of housing consistent with City Council identified needs; targeting to local residents; homes for those who work here; legal limitations on resident targeting

Planning Commission will be reviewing mix and distribution of housing types. Social Services Commission will be evaluating affordable housing plan and “Trust” proposal

Density consistent with SACOG recommendations or Europe and other innovative places ; density reduced to reduce school and traffic impacts; smaller lots and units to be inherently more affordable; does mix of housing types support transit

Planning Commission will be reviewing overall density, mix and distribution of housing types.


Issue Review Assignment Amount and type of affordable housing provided; effort needed for administration of affordable housing program; effectiveness of proposed affordable housing program to meet community needs and provide assistance to those who are targeted; is $40,000 loan enough to meet targeted households; fair buyer selection process for affordable units

Social Services Commission will be evaluating affordable housing plan and “Trust” proposal. Bay Area Economics review of “Trust” proposal includes evaluation of administrative costs and organizational sustainability

Cost of units compared to local needs; whether single-family detached units can be affordable to local employees; cost of rents for apartments

Planning Commission will be reviewing mix and distribution of housing types.

Timing for buildout of development; need for new housing at this time when fair-share requirements are met; consistency with General Plan growth policies and Measure L goals; room available for infill developments given 250 units/year target

Planning Commission will review proposed development phasing and number/type of housing units. City Council will have decision-making authority over phasing provisions of Development Agreement

Restriction on number of bedrooms to reduce traffic impacts; limitation on upsizing structures in neighborhoods planned for entry level homes

Planning Commission will be reviewing mix and distribution of housing types, along with proposed zoning restrictions for single-family and multifamily areas

When and how lots will be sold to community

Planning Commission to review proposed development phasing and any proposal for “small builder” or “owner-builder” restrictions

Need for senior housing Senior Citizens Commission will be reviewing type and location of senior housing and facilities; Planning Commission will be reviewing overall mix of housing types

Need for more student housing Planning Commission will be reviewing mix and distribution of housing types,

Amount of live-work housing Planning Commission will be reviewing mix and distribution of housing types.

Effect of project approval – and 250/year policy – on future “fair-share” allocations and need to approve other developments Whether project would have a monopoly on housing availability during buildout

Planning Commission will review proposed development phasing and number/type of housing units. City Council will have decision-making authority over phasing provisions of Development Agreement


Issue Review Assignment Effect of flood insurance, transit assessments, school Mello-Roos on housing affordability

Additional costs of homeownership will be evaluated by Social Services Commission for the affordable housing units. Planning Commission will evaluate overall affordability of project proposal

Schools Need for satellite high schools at this location and at the UCD new neighborhood; trigger for moving to two high schools

Davis Joint Unified School District will be providing comments on the adequacy of the proposed school facilities and its intentions for the school site, if known.

Number and impacts of portable classrooms at existing school facilities; potential for school closures without additional housing

EIR will assess adequacy of schools as part of the public services discussion.

Funding to provide schools to serve residents; enrollment levels at existing schools and capacity to serve children of the development; timing of development of school site (Grande example)

EIR will assess adequacy of schools as part of the public services discussion.

Impact of Covell Village project on need for school in Wildhorse; will schools be built in Wildhorse or Covell Village?

DJUSD preliminary agreement with Covell Village Partners calls for preservation of Nugget Fields as a sports facility.

Need to know about school accommodations before the children move into the subdivision (Roseville built the school first)

District has requested maximum flexibility in zoning for school district site to respond to district needs; City Council will make final decision on zoning

Funding for building and operating schools DJUSD has preliminary agreement with Covell Village partners

Surrounding Land Uses Go-kart site EIR will assess noise impacts from go-kart

facility Compatibility of Con-Agra (Hunt’s) site; additional traffic impacts if ConAgra is approved with retail uses; benefit of joint planning and seamless integration between Covell Village and Con-Agra

EIR will assess compatibility of adjacent land uses. Planning Commission will evaluate the two proposals and their connectivity. EIR will analyze cumulative traffic impacts if ConAgra site is developed with more intense uses.

Toxics and ponds near old landfill site EIR will address contamination and hazards. Natural Resources Commission will review uses proposed adjacent to former landfill.


Issue Review Assignment Potential for additional public uses along Covell Boulevard to blend with Community Park and Little League Fields

Recreation and Parks Commission will review location and type of recreation and park facilities. Planning Commission will be reviewing overall distribution of land uses.

Agriculture and Habitat Develop wildlife habitat first Open Space Commission will discuss

timing and provisions for habitat construction

Quality of agricultural soil; comparison of mitigation lands with project site Protect agricultural land and feeling of open space around Davis

Open Space Commission and EIR will assess impacts on agriculture and possible mitigation

Alternatives if April 2005 deadline for project approvals is not met

Open Space Commission will evaluate agriculture preservation proposal and consistency with city policies

Options for clustering homesites on agricultural preservation land

Open Space Commission will evaluate proposed uses on mitigation lands

Opportunity for permanent border to north because of agricultural mitigation

Open Space Commission will discuss provisions for agricultural mitigation and compliance with city goals

Impact on habitat, including Swainson’s Hawk

EIR will assess impacts on wildlife and habitat, including Swainson’s hawk

Pathways and access to habitat areas Open Space Commission will be addressing access to wetlands and habitat. Natural Resources Commission will address storm drainage and wetland system, and its proximity to other uses.

Parks and Open Space Amount of open space compared to the “Crossroads” proposal

Recreation and Parks Commission will evaluate adequacy and distribution of parks within the project and compatibility with the overall park system

Future use of Nugget Fields Davis Joint Unified School District has tentative agreement with Covell Village applicants on future of Nugget Fields property.

Existing neighborhoods get traffic and noise impacts; new neighborhood gets parks and greenbelts Project benefits for city-wide bicycle circulation system

Recreation and Parks Commission will evaluate adequacy and distribution of parks within the project and compatibility with the overall park system


Issue Review Assignment Consider stopping project at drainage channel or shifting open space to just east of Northstar park, to create more blending between neighborhoods

Open Space Commission will review overall distribution of open space and habitat areas

Impact on citywide programs services such as Children’s Nutcracker, Art Center, recreation programs

EIR will evaluate adequacy of public facilities and services. Recreation and Parks Commission will review overall impacts of project proposal on city-side recreation system

Distribution of open space within project; access to parks for residents of higher-density housing

Recreation and Parks Commission will evaluate overall distribution of parks and greenbelts within project proposal

Timing of park development Development Agreement may include provisions for construction and maintenance of parks. Recreation and Parks Commission will evaluate overall park and greenbelt proposal

Community Feel and Environmental Issues Size of houses and potential for minimansions; aesthetics of subdivision; whether alleys will be attractive; how small and larger lots can be compatibly integrated; whether proposal is truly new urbanist

Planning Commission to review zoning and design guidelines

Impacts of growth from UCD new neighborhood and Spring Lake; overall impact on small-town character

EIR will address cumulative effects of this proposal and other projects. City Council and voters will make final determination on costs and benefits of proposal

Energy-efficiency of buildings; Solar production within subdivision; potential for zero-energy subdivision

Natural Resources Commission will review ecological design and energy-efficiency features.

Impact on community-wide housing prices from additional supply

City Council will evaluate overall costs and benefits from project proposal

Benefit from community building and meeting space

Recreation and Parks Commission will evaluate some community facilities proposed by project

Change in community character from community expansion; “suburban sprawl”

Planning Commission and City Council will make ultimate determination on costs and benefits of project proposal, subject to voter ratification if approved


Issue Review Assignment Light pollution EIR will address impacts of light and glare.

Natural Resources Commission will review outdoor lighting plan.

Increase in crime from higher population Adequacy of public services, including police services, will be evaluated in the EIR

Physical size of project and distance from northern portion to walkable destinations; potential for other mixed-use hubs within development

Planning Commission will address mix and distribution of uses

Segregation / integration of uses, including commercial hub(s) and senior core facility

Planning Commission will address mix and distribution of uses

Implementation of goals for sustainability, new urbanism, ecological design, and energy efficiency

Natural Resources Commission will review ecological design and energy-efficiency features.

Loss of agricultural scenery from Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road

EIR will address visual impacts of project proposal Open Space Commission will review impacts on agricultural lands

Preserve tree and barn EIR will address impacts on cultural resources. Tree Commission will evaluate proposal for preserving tree

Economic Development / Village Center Need for gas station and health club in Village Center

Business and Economic Development Commission will review mix of proposed non-residential uses. Planning Commission will review project proposal for compatibility with surrounding land uses and city goals

Opportunity to have retail uses directly accessible from Covell Boulevard

Planning Commission will review design guidelines for Village Center area; Public Works Department will review proposed driveway locations (if any) for commercial buildings along Pole Line Road and Covell Boulevard

Downtown impacts from hotel in Village Center; strength of existing hotel market and occupancy rates

Business and Economic Development Commission will review mix of proposed non-residential uses and impacts on downtown


Issue Review Assignment Benefit to Oak Tree Plaza from new retail and shopping opportunities; competition for existing businesses and neighborhood centers

Business and Economic Development Commission will review mix of proposed non-residential uses. Planning Commission will review project proposal for compatibility with city goals

Viability of Village Center and proposed mixed-use developments; feasibility analysis for commercial uses Whether surrounding land uses (e.g. senior housing) are optimal and intense enough to support Village Center

Planning Commission to evaluate mix and location of housing types; Business and Economic Development Commission to evaluate viability of Village Center commercial uses

Opportunity for existing businesses to expand or purchase buildings

Business and Economic Development Commission may wish to discuss proposed ownership of commercial properties; Planning Commission will evaluate parcel sizes, which may be related to ownership opportunities

Size of Village Center; amount of square footage compared to other centers

Business and Economic Development Commission will review mix of proposed non-residential uses. Planning Commission will review project proposal for compatibility with city goals

Other / Alternatives Fast-track review process; opportunities for public dialog and citizens committee to discuss project and process; timing of Measure J election

City Council to review schedule for meetings and hearings and (if project is approved) determine timing for election

Process would require annexation and Measure J vote; not part of existing City

City Council to review annexation application; if approved by Council, project would be subject to Measure J voter review

UCD or infill housing as alternatives to Covell Village; Encourage development near Sacramento/Bay Area job centers; request more student apartments on UCD core campus Con-Agra as alternative to Covell Village; logical location for infill or new development

EIR to include alternatives to project proposal; Planning Commission and City Council to make final determination

Potential for job-generating development instead of residential uses



Issue Review Assignment Organic mini-farms as alternative to urban development; more mixed-use, office park

EIR to include alternatives to project proposal, including continued use as agriculture

Opportunity to include sports fields at Covell Village or Con-Agra to avoid facilities east of Davis


Location of hospice adjacent to landfill instead of next to hospital

Social Services Commission will evaluate nature and location of senior services and hospice

Mechanisms for ensuring that what is promised is really delivered

Planning Commission and City Council to review zoning and Development Agreement

Defining Land Use Visions Covell Village Neighborhood

1. A comprehensive, cutting edge neighborhood design representative of the Davis tradition for exemplary community planning. 2. A community of integrated and interconnected neighborhoods free from traditional subdivision design practices typified by rigid separation of land uses and inefficient land use patterns. 3. A balanced community providing for a wide range of resident needs. 4. A neighborhood utilizing no more land than necessary to meet community needs through 2015. 5. A neighborhood that utilizes no more energy than it generates. 6. A neighborhood that carefully nurtures the interconnection between the natural and built environment. 7. A neighborhood that incorporates the latest methods and design principles for conservation of precious natural resources such as water and fossil fuels. 8. A neighborhood adhering to the highest principles for urban design. 9. A neighborhood with a mix of housing types and prices fulfilling a significant portion of the City’s housing needs for the next decade. 10. A neighborhood containing a multi-dimensional transportation system that gives equal weight to the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and transit options. 11. A neighborhood demonstrating that well designed higher density housing forms mixed with ample and well planned open space amenities can create an attractive living environment while adhering to a more efficient land use pattern.

Major objectives and immediate issues for the Covell Village Application Major Objectives

1. Provide housing for the City’s internal housing needs to January 2015 (including fair-share requirements 2008-13) not expected to be provided by infill and other projects

2. Provide a mix of housing consistent with community needs, including affordable housing consistent with the Housing Element and Affordable Housing Ordinance

3. Ensure efficient use of the land and promote smart-growth densities and design principles

4. Coordinate the planning of the Covell Village and Con Agra sites, including land uses, circulation, housing, and parks/open space. If possible, integrate discussion of the former landfill property as part of the overall planning process

5. Provide a fire station site and ensure that the station will be built in a timely manner 6. Full mitigation for impacts on schools and enhanced overall school facilities to the

extent feasible 7. Provide community and neighborhood retail and services that complement Oak Tree

Plaza, meet existing community needs, and do not jeopardize the downtown 8. Include job/employment uses that provide opportunities for existing residents rather

than attracting non-resident commuters 9. Ensure that the revenues to the City of Davis are sufficient to cover capital and

operating costs for serving the development without placing untenable burdens on property owners and residents of the development

10. Include people-friendly neighborhoods with street tree planting strips, porches, garages that do not dominate street views, and moderate street widths

11. Incorporate parks and open space to serve residents of the subdivision and complement facilities elsewhere in the community.

12. Provide agricultural mitigation consistent with the Agricultural Mitigation ordinance and its goals of preserving open space

Summary of AlternativesTotal Site Total Units Total Residential Use Gross Density

(Ac) (Ac / % of site) Units/AcCovell Village Applicant Proposal 422.3 1515 232.2 / 55% 6.52

Alt. 1 Accommodate Housing Need Balance on 347 1400 173 / 50% 8.1Covell Village South of Channel and Con AgraAlt. 2 Accommodate Housing Need Balance 232 1400 135.2 / 58% 10.35on Lower Covell Village and Con AgraTotal "Green" = on-site Parks, Greenbelts, Ag Buffer, and Channel.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Covell Village Land Use Alternatives to Accommodate 1400* Units of Housing Need Balance Through 2015

Last Updated: October 25, 2004* 1400 Units are needed based on an assumption of "medium level" infill development (see attachment)

Applicant Proposal

Applicant ProposalCovell Village (Ac)

Total Site 422.3Residential Acres 232.2Total Residential Units 1515Gross Residential Density (DU/ACRE) 6.52Pre-school 1School 10.1Village Center 15.8Senior Congregate Care 5.3Fire Station 1.5Hospice 5.3Village & Community Uses 39Open Space & Habitat 114Park 10.7Mini Parks 8.6Habitat/Channel 31.2Restored Habitat 34.8Greenways 22Covell Greenstreet 1.4Pole Line Greenstreet 5.2Major Streets 37.2

Alt. 1: Housing Need Balance on Covell Village South of Channel and Con AgraCon Agra (Ac) Covell Village (Ac) Total (Ac)

Total Site 100 247 347Residential Acres 35 138 173Total Residential Units 410 990 1400Gross Residential Density (DU/ACRE) 11.7 7.2 8.1Commercial & Community Uses 51.6 40 91.6Parks 5.4 13 18.4Neighborhood Greenbelts 3.5 13.5 17Channel/Ag Buffer (on-site) 0 31* 31*Major Internal Streets 4.5 11.5 16**Total Other Uses Acres 65 109 174* 300' x 4500' (to 150' north from center of channel)** Major internal streets assumed to be 4.6% of total siteGreenbelts assumed at current standard of 10% of residential acreageParks assumed at current standard of # dwellings x .0131 acresAssumes approximately 1/3 of Con Agra site for residential use.

Note: Should the northern portion of the Covell Village site (north of channel) be designated for development after year 2015 it could accommodate approximately 800 additional dwelling units assuming 136 acres at 8.1 dwelling units per acre average (subtracts 4.6% or 6.3 ac for major streets, standard park and greenbelts at 24.1 ac, and 150' x 2000' ag buffer at NW boundary). These 800 units, along with 450 infill units, would meet a total housing need of 1250 units(5 years x 250 units) that could be developed during the five years from 2015 to 2020.

Alt. 2: Housing Need Balance on Lower Covell Village and Con AgraCon Agra (Ac) Covell Village (Ac) Total (Ac)

Total Site 100 132 232Residential Acres 59.33 75.97 135.3Total Residential Units 602 798 1400Gross Residential Density (DU/ACRE) 10.15 10.5 10.35Commercial & Community Uses 17.2 22.8 40Parks 7.87 10.43 18.3Neighborhood Greenbelts 5.8 7.7 13.5Ag Buffer 5.2** 9* 14.2Arterial Streets 4.6*** 6.1*** 10.7Total Other Uses Acres 40.67 56.03 96.7* (150' x 2600')** (150' x 1500')*** Internal arterial streets assumed to be 4.6% of siteGreenbelts assumed at current standard of 10% of residential acreageParks assumed at current standard of # dwellings x .0131 acresUses distributed proportionally between sites (Covell Village = 57%, Con Agra = 43%)

DRAFT Covell Village Small Urban Farms Concept – Draft December 2004 Issue statement: The CV project is designed to meet multiple objectives of both the City and the applicant. The footprint of the project is one of the primary features as it determines how successful the City is in meeting its goal of maintaining a compact urban form surrounded by farmland. One option under consideration is developing urban uses south of Channel A while retaining agricultural uses north of the channel. While considerable information has been developed for the higher density project alternative area south of the channel, little analysis has been done regarding potential land uses north of the channel. This concept paper offers a summary analysis of one alternative. Goal: Create a sustainable land use at the north edge of the CV project that:

• Establishes an effective urban/ag buffer. • Integrates farming and the community through recreational, educational, and direct

marketing opportunities. • Provides an opportunity for farmers to develop sustainable farms and farming practices. • Creates beneficial connections for people and wildlife between existing habitat/greenbelts

to the east and west of the CV site. • Develops a successful example of small urban farms. • Creates opportunities for redevelopment of the City’s abandoned landfill that supports the

agricultural industry. Measures of success The small farms concept would be considered a success if it is:

• Sustainable (economic, environmental, and community) • Accepted by the community • Supports diversity in yolo county ag production • Enhances wildlife habitat value.

Concept elements:

Physical design (see Attachment 1) • 4 Small organic farms (120ac) • 4 Limited Resource Producer farmsteads for entry level farmers either on marginal soils

or in the CV housing development near the farms (4ac). • 1 Consolidated farm stand marketing area @ Poleline Road (2ac) • 1 Community gardens (5ac) • Greenbelt @ Channel A (14ac) Total area: 145ac

Covell Village Small Urban Farms Concept – Draft December 2004 page 1 of 3

Cultural design • Small organic farms established prior to construction of adjacent housing to minimize

urban/ag conflicts and to establish realistic expectations for homeowners living on or near the rural edge.

• Direct access to local markets (farm stand, CSA program, farmers market, Coop, etc). • Support recruitment of farmers to replace retiring generation. • Build knowledge of and support for sustainable farm practices in the County. • Integrate farms into the fabric of the community, blending urban and rural land uses. • Diversify ag production in the County to better withstand market fluctuations and

changing national and global ag policies.

How/Why? How will the concept be implemented and why is it advantageous.

1. Supports and complements higher density design south of the channel. 2. The project can provide its adjacent mitigation north of the channel, satisfying adjacency

requirements and realizing bonuses associated with providing additional adjacent mitigation. Preliminary staff calculations, ag mitigation requirement reduced from 766ac to 334ac.

3. City can possibly provide incentives in the development agreement process to reduce parks and greenbelt area south of the channel in exchange for developer participation. (Nexus: opportunity for farm visits by the general public). Reduces parks O&M cost to City and allows more space in development for identified housing need.

4. City buys back north of channel land with project open space impact fees (at ag value). City retains ownership and enters into long term leases with small farmers or sells farms with CE and right of first refusal. Any lease revenues would be used to fund community education programs, community gardens, buffer management, etc.

5. Develop a non-profit to administer the community outreach and education program. 6. Identify grants to redevelop landfill to support sustainable ag uses (packing facility, etc.).

Comparison (north of channel area) Small Farms Concept Existing proposal Supports and complements higher density south of Channel A.

Does not support higher density south of Channel A.

More ag mitigation adjacent to City. More ag mitigation in outlying areas. Uses project and ag mitigation to directly support sustainable ag in the Davis area.

Passive support of ag in general. “Buys down” a large block of ag land that could support sustainable ag in the future.

Meets expressed need in the ag community for affordable small farms for entry level farmers.

Large block generally better suited to conventional, more established producers.

Directly engages community in the issue of the viability of ag.

Creates opportunity to engage community in ag viability discussion on a more theoretical level.

Buffers old land fill from housing and creates opportunities for ag related redevelopment of the site.

Does not create new redevelopment opportunities. Likely to create need to redevelop old land fill as non-revenue generating recreational use compatible with adjacent housing.

Integrates more compatible farms with community. Separates less compatible farms from community. Implements new, innovative program that will require administrative support from City staff.

Implements an existing program that will not require significant additional administrative support from City staff.


Sustainability Economics • Direct marketing • Land/leases at agricultural values • Affordable homes for entry level farmers • City able to reinvest lease revenues back into farms Environment • Connections with existing habitat areas adjacent to the site • Organic ag production supports and takes advantage of on-site natural resources and

natural biological cycles and controls (e.g. IMP, hedgerows, soil building, tail water ponds, etc).

Community • Farms accessible to the community (location and opportunities) • Builds more direct connection between the farming community and the City and its

residents • “Destination” along the City’s greenbelt encourages outdoor activity/exercise • Integrates community garden with “professional” ag production • Fresh produce for local consumers • Creates a balance between accessible, less structured “open space” for residents living in

a relatively dense development south of the channel • Creates connections between University and community through unique ag research

opportunities

Desired outcome: Integrate small sustainable farms into CV design to complement higher density design south of the channel. Ideas: Issues: • Use Fairview Gardens as a working example (see

Attachment 2) • Use UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Ed.

Program and Small Farms Center as resources. • Work with CAFF to develop farm support and

community integration program. • Engage local sustainable farm consultant to assist in

developing business plan for sustained agricultural use on the site.

• Liability insurance • Vandalism • Dust/Noise • Financing • Land owner interest/participation • Viable business plan for farmers

Attachments 1. Conceptual land use plan. 2. Fairview Gardens information sheet (permission to use pending). H:\OPENSPAC\Development Projects (City)\Covell Village\Small urban farms concept\Small Urban Farms Concept paper - draft v1.doc


Covell Village Development Agreement City Counter-proposal November 1, 2004 Highest Priority

Turnkey Fire Station, including apparatus (location may be flexible provided access is good; need continued internal discussion over location for training facility)

Endowment for maintenance of open space, habitat, and storm water operations Funds for Public Safety Training Facility Contribution to athletic fields, gym, or recreation facilities to serve community

Second Priority

Traffic calming for J, K, and L Streets Transit funding after initial seven years Additional police officers and vehicle Assurances for continued property tax (or in lieu) if Eskaton turns exempt Public Art Zero energy subdivision Well site and well Higher fees for WWTP capital improvements Manor Pool, Walnut Pool, or Community building improvements Additional community recreation in project, such as dog park Land dedicated to City for workforce housing Location within Covell Village project for moving old houses from core area Funding for downtown parking improvements

1/5/05 R:\CITYCLK\Agenda2005\08Jan05 Retreat\Covell App Development Agr Counter Proposal-Att7-1.doc

1

Date: December 14, 2004 To: Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC) From: Covell Village Subcommittee; Dennis Lindsay and Sheryl Patterson RE: COVELL VILLAGE REPORT I. Committee Charge According to the City Planning staff’s Covell Village Application Issue Review Assignments (dated 8/17/04 and 8/31/04), the BEDC was tasked to analyze the Covell Village project in regards to the following issues:

Non-residential components for impacts on the City’s economy, in particular: • Allowable Non-residential uses • Interrelation with ConAgra uses

The BEDC‘s role in reviewing projects is generally to identify constraints to new commercial projects. However, the Commission’s charge for this project was to evaluate impacts to other existing and future commercial projects. Since we did not have the Covell Village EIR or the economic feasibility study that is to be prepared to analyze the ConAgra project, we had to rely on the City’s existing studies and input from staff and the Covell Village applicant to develop our recommendations for consideration by the full Commission. II. Covell Village Application The developer proposes the following non-residential project components: Retail 57,672 sq. ft. (Community vs. neighborhood retail not broken out; the

site plan could accommodate two 12-15,000 SF tenants) Office 39,450 sq. ft. Live/Work Business 29,150 sq. ft. Live/Work Office 26,400 sq. ft. (20 units) Hotel 38,655 sq. ft. (58 rooms; “extended stay” is intent) Restaurant 6,000 sq. ft. (No info on number or type of establishments) Health Club 30,000 sq. ft. Church 9,700 sq. ft. Gas Station 3,600 sq. ft.

2

III. Subcommittee Recommendation Based on our review of the available data and applicant input, we recommend approval of the non-residential components of this project. We offer the following comments and the attached background information which the Commission may wish to consider as part of its review of this project:

1. Community and Neighborhood Serving Retail. Davis is fortunate to have a number of new retail projects proposed for future development. In addition to the retail component at Covell Village (58,000 sq. ft.), new retail projects are also proposed at Second Street (Target plus two 15,000 sq. ft. pads), ConAgra (250,000 sq. ft.), Mace and Alhambra (62,700 sq. ft), the possibility of some additional retail in South Davis, as well as infill redevelopment at Davis Manor and in Downtown.

We are concerned as to whether the City can accommodate all of the proposed community and neighborhood serving retail without impacting its existing retail establishments. However, not all of the proposed or conceptual projects may proceed to file an application. The economic feasibility study that will be prepared for the ConAgra project should help the City develop its retail strategy regarding the type, size and location of new community and neighborhood serving retail. The type of retail proposed at ConAgra is expected to be sufficiently different from the Covell Village project, so that these two retail developments will be complementary rather than conflicting. Also, the size and type of tenants envisioned in all of the other proposed retail projects may change. A retail center needs at least one community serving retail as an anchor. If the City’s priority is to attract a Trader Joes, then we need to retain flexibility to allow that retailer to decide whether to locate at the Mace and Alhambra center or at Covell Village. The live/work/business component of this project will provide a new (and unique) opportunity for small businesses to own their own building, and perhaps reside above their retail establishment. Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, we do not believe at this time that this Commission should constrain the type, size, or timing of the retail proposed at Covell Village.

2. Hotel. Additional hotel rooms supposedly are not needed any sooner than after

2010 per the ERA September 2004 study, due primarily to the additional rooms to be included in the pending UC Davis conference center project. Also, hotels typically should be located within the Downtown to take advantage of the multiple restaurants and shopping and entertainment venues. However, the “extended stay” type of hotel proposed at Covell Village may be different enough to accommodate a new type of hotel demand, so as not to impact the existing Downtown hotels.

3

The Covell Village applicant has indicated that there is an existing need for an extended stay hotel for families of relatives at the Sutter Davis hospital and the University Retirement Center; as well as to serve the proposed assisted living (e.g. Eskaton) and hospice facilities, and the senior housing proposed as part of Covell Village project. An extended stay hotel may also meet the needs of other types of patrons, such as visiting professors or business travelers. As long as the hotel is designed as a “residence inn” (with a separate kitchen and living room), then a hotel at Covell Village should compliment (rather than compete) with the existing types of hotels (and motels) currently available in Davis.

3. Restaurants. Restaurants are compatible with the “village” concept and would

serve the East Davis neighborhood and surrounding community. Oak Tree Plaza does not have any sit-down restaurants, Davis Manor only has Symposium which may soon relocate, and there is a need for additional family style restaurants to serve East Davis. One such restaurant is proposed for the Mace and Alhambra Retail Center.

Restaurants help to define and enhance a neighborhood, and they can generate significant sales tax revenues. It is anticipated that Covell Village would only accommodate one sit-down family type restaurant, and that any additional restaurants would be with smaller “take-out” type of eateries.

4. Health Club. Health clubs generate a high parking demand that can create

problems for adjacent residents and businesses. The existing Davis Athletic Club (DAC) in Green Meadows is one example of such conflicts. East Davis also has two other health clubs – 24 Hour Fitness and Peak Performance. However, health clubs within walking or biking distance of residential neighborhoods are desirable to serve the needs of the adjacent residents and to reduce traffic and parking demands.

The Covell Village applicant has indicated that DAC (as well as other health club operators) have indicated an interest in relocating or establishing a new facility as part of their project. A new recreational facility so close to DAC could potentially impact its viability if it does not relocate its existing facility to Covell Village. However, the additional housing units at Covell Village and ConAgra, combined with the office employees at both projects, would probably create enough demand for another health club, and the village would be a convenient location for such patrons.

5. Gas Station. Gas stations serve the surrounding neighborhood and the larger

community. They can generate a significant amount of vehicular traffic that is not necessarily related to patronage at nearby retail centers, but they also generate significant sales tax revenues.

4

The existing gas stations on Mace Blvd. (Arco), Covell Blvd (Shell, Chevron, Union 76) and 5th Street (Exxon and Union 76), and the additional gas stations in South Davis at the Mace Blvd interchange may be adequate to meet the needs of existing and future East Davis residents.

While it was our first impression that a gas station does not seem to fit within the “village” concept, the applicant has demonstrated that a gas station helps to anchor the convenience retail, reduce traffic by meeting internal needs, and such use is compatible with the other retail and office uses in the village. It should also be noted that if the ConAgra site is developed as proposed, the gas station at Covell Village will also help serve the residents, office employees, and retail patrons in that adjacent neighborhood.

6. Offices. There has been a sluggish demand for office development in the past,

and there are competing office projects along Second Street, in South Davis, at ConAgra, and within the Downtown. It is expected that the office uses at Covell Village will be smaller “service office” type tenants, versus the larger type of office/R&D/business park users to be accommodated at ConAgra. Also, the live/work component in Covell Village will help meet the demand for small service-oriented businesses to own their office space rather than rent.

5

APPENDIX

ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Retail Demand – Leakage and Types of Uses The proposed non-residential uses at Covell Village were evaluated in light of the existing community need for additional retail development that is documented in two recent City-sponsored studies. Retail Demand and Goals The July 14, 2004 Bay Area Economics (BAE) “Retail Sales Tax Leakage Study” concluded that the City lacked sufficient businesses (square footage) in the following community retail categories to meet existing demand:

• Apparel Stores • General merchandising stores • Home furnishings an appliances • Building materials

The BAE Retail Sales Tax Leakage Study focused on City residents’ patronage of retail centers in other communities (leakage) due to the lack of regional and community retail establishments in Davis. The City Council has adopted the goal of: “Increase retail shopping opportunities consistent with the BEDC survey to meet community demand.” The Council’s adopted the following objective to meet that goal: “Pursue high demand retail stores such as Target, Trader Joes, and electronics consistent with the BEDC survey. Work to mitigate impacts on neighborhoods and existing Downtown businesses.” Community vs. Neighborhood Retail “Neighborhood” Retail: According to the Economic Research Associates (ERA) “Commercial Feasibility Study of Selected Properties in Davis,” dated September 8, 2004, a “Neighborhood Center” is comprised of stores that sell convenience goods and personal services, and are generally anchored by a grocery store. This report states that the General Plan defines neighborhood shopping centers as those that: “Serve the daily needs of the surrounding neighborhoods for goods and services, such as groceries, pharmaceuticals, dry cleaning, and other uses.” A typical neighborhood retail center was set at between 60,000 to120,000 sq. ft. (assuming multiple tenants). However, this same report indicated that a small neighborhood retail center in Mace Ranch at the 5th and Alhambra site could be sized at between 10,000 and 20,000 square feet.

6

“Community” Retail: Community retail centers range in size from 100,000 to 500,000 sq. ft. (minimum of 10 acres) according to this recent ERA “Community Feasibility” report. The examples of community retail uses provided were the following types of stores: apparel, general merchandising, home furnishings, appliances, electronics, sporting goods, books, and larger specialty stores (i.e. Michaels Art Supply, Cost Plus, Petsmart, etc). The smallest community retail user mentioned was 20,000 sq. ft. for an electronics store. Restaurants Although the number of existing restaurants was not considered deficient per the BAE “leakage” report, it did note that a significant amount of sale taxes were generated by eating and drinking establishments. Restaurants can fit under either community or neighborhood retail definitions based on the size, type of food service and whether the restaurant is part of national (marketing) franchise. Office Developments The ERA “retail feasibility” study also addressed the suitability of the South Davis freeway parcels for office use. Office uses are dependent on visibility or prominence of the setting to provide prestige and walking distance to support facilities like restaurants and shops. Typical office uses would include stand alone medical offices, small tenants clustered together or a multi-parcel office/business park, or small offices on small parcels. Neither study addressed the demand for additional office space. Other Uses Other non-residential uses listed in the ERA report would include service commercial (e.g., gasoline stations), hotels, health and fitness facilities, family fun centers, childcare facilities, and churches. This report did not analyze the demand for such other uses. Automobile dealerships were also noted in the report, but those are more of a regional use and require a freeway location. Relation to Other Proposed Retail/Office/Hotel Projects In the Subcommittee’s opinion, the Commission should evaluate the non-residential uses proposed at Covell Village in light of all of the following approved, proposed or conceptual projects:

• ConAgra at Covell and L Streets - retail, office and residential development (pre-application).

• Target at Second Street – plus two 15,000 sq. ft. pads for ancillary retail uses (pre-application).

• Mace and Alhambra Retail Center – restaurants, Trader Joes or drug store, offices, and neighborhood serving smaller retail users (application).

• South Davis freeway parcels along Cowell – conversion from office/industrial to community retail uses (conceptual).

• UC Davis Hotel/Conference Center – 75 room facility plus conference center (approved).

7

ConAgra: The proposed ConAgra project includes 25 acres or 250,000 sq. ft. for “retail” development, which was supported in concept by BEDC on October 25, 2004. The City staff’s breakdown of this square footage, as set out in the table labeled “Potential Neighborhood and Community Retail Opportunities” (dated August 19, 2004) was roughly 55% community retail and 45% neighborhood retail. This was a pre-application so the range of community retail is between 125,000 to 150,000 sq. ft. with the remaining 100,000 and 125,000 sq. ft. consisting of neighborhood retail. In addition, this project is to include at least 20 acres of office/R&D/business park space, and 400 residential units that would be primarily higher density housing. The developer, Lewis Planned Communities, has previously developed (and continues to own) large, mixed use, retail centers that include a number of national chains and regional and community retail businesses. Therefore, the expectation is that their project at ConAgra would constitute an even higher percentage of community retail tenants versus neighborhood retail than the City staff’s estimated breakdown. In terms of the office development, the BEDC recommended that the ConAgra development include at least 20 acres for office/R&D/business park. Based on ConAgra’s initial 15 acre proposal of roughly 200,000 sq, ft. of office space, the total office/R&D/business park at 20 acres could be approximately 250,000 sq. ft. The breakdown of this square footage among the office park and a live/work components has not yet been defined. The office workers and residents at the ConAgra site would create a demand for some level of additional community and neighborhood serving retail. The developer, Lewis Planned Communities, indicated that it intended to cluster the “neighborhood” or service retail users among the “community” retail anchors. The proposed neighborhood retail component at around 125,000 sq. feet would be double the size of the Mace and Alhambra retail center. The proposed amount of neighborhood retail at the ConAgra project would meet more than its internal generated need and accommodate some of the neighborhood retail needs of the adjacent Covell Village residents, as well as East and North Davis residents. However, it is expected that the types of neighborhood retail uses at ConAgra would compliment both Oak Tree Plaza as well as Covell Village retail establishments. Target: The proposed Target project at Second Street (at 136,000 sq. ft) would fall under the apparel stores and general merchandising categories, and would be considered a “community” and “regional” retail use. The ancillary uses would be two 15,000 sq. ft. pads that could accommodate community retail users such as an electronics or sporting goods store, or other larger specialty store that would be attracted to locate next to Target. Mace Ranch Retail Center: The developer is proposing to build a 62,700 sq. ft. “neighborhood” retail center that could accommodate one “community” retail anchor, targeted either for a small specialty market like a Trader Joes or a drug store.

8

In addition, this center is expected to include a family style sit-down restaurant, with the other tenants primarily smaller ancillary neighborhood and service commercial users. As part of this project, one of the four buildings would be designed for small offices on the first floor (such as medical, dental, or financial tenants) and second floor would be devoted to residential apartment units. South Davis Scattered Parcels: The ERA Commercial Feasibility Study essentially concluded that community serving retail was not viable on the four South Davis office/industrial zoned properties included in that study. Covell Village Recommendations - Subcommittee Analysis Retail: There is an existing need for additional neighborhood serving retail in East Davis, such as a coffee shop, bagel or bakery store, dry cleaners, stationary store, and mail/packaging and copying service; as well as smaller convenience or fast food operations. Also, adding 1,500 residential units at Covell Village over the next seven to ten years will create additional demand for retail. The retail component is integral to the applicant’s “village” concept, which is targeted to reduce traffic by meeting internal retail needs. The phasing for the village is not specified in order to allow flexibility as to when to bring each of the proposed uses online. While there may be a desire to coordinate the phasing of the new housing with the village development, retail construction (demand) may not easily coincide with the residential phasing, and some of the proposed uses are needed to serve existing retail needs. The type of retail businesses located in the village should compliment the type of existing tenants at the adjacent Oak Tree Plaza center. Zoning and the development agreement will not be able to specify the specific tenants; however the type and size of the permitted retail can be regulated if such restrictions, rather than relying on market forces, is desired. In addition to the stand-alone retail, the Covell Village project includes 29,000 sq. ft. of live/work businesses. These tenants will be primarily small retail or service commercial users that will be in addition to, and should compliment, the neighborhood retail tenants in the village. Restaurants: The BAE study showed that significant sale tax dollars were generated from restaurant establishments. Restaurants outside of the Downtown area in general do not adversely impact the patronage at the Downtown restaurants because of their concentration and proximity to shopping and entertainment venues in the core area. Therefore, we do not believe that the type or size of restaurants need to be regulated. Offices: Most of the demand for office space will probably be attracted to the ConAgra business park. However, smaller office space users seem to prefer to own their buildings rather than to rent. The Covell Village project includes 39,500 sq. ft of “stand alone” office, in addition to 26,400 sq. ft of live/work/office space.

9

The live/work/office space would likely be used by home-based businesses, such as consultants, computer programmers, architects and attorneys. The roughly 40,000 sq. ft. of “stand alone” office buildings in Covell Village may directly compete with the same tenants as the ConAgra office park. However, the Covell Village office square footage represents only 15% to 20% of the office park space proposed by ConAgra. The ConAgra applicant has indicated that it does not believe that there is sufficient demand for the roughly 250,000 sq. ft. of office space desired by the City, due to the slow office growth over the past few years. However, in planning for the future and to support the expected R&D created by UC Davis endeavors, it is anticipated that the office demand in the future will be greater than past trends. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we do not believe that the proposed office uses at Covell Village need to be modified in regards to either total square footage or the type of space (i.e., office building vs. live/work). Hotel: Covell Village proposes an extended-stay hotel to serve primarily out-of-town family visiting relatives at the Eskaton assisted living center, the hospice, Sutter Davis hospital, and the smaller senior housing component of the project. We note that an extended-stay hotel in Covell Village may also serve the office/business park tenants in the adjacent ConAgra project, as well as other existing office parks and UC Davis. The concern is locating a hotel so far away from the cluster of hotels within or near the Downtown area (with the exception of the low-cost freeway motels in South Davis). An extended stay hotel typically provides suites or studios with full kitchens and laundry facilities in the facility. The recent ERA Study of Commercial Feasibility dated September of 2004 concluded that due to the pending UC Davis hotel and conference center project, “it is not likely that Davis will warrant additional hotel development, assuming that the UC Davis project proceeds, until beyond 2010.” However, the “extended stay” type of hotel proposed at Covell Village may be unique enough to meet another type of hotel demand.

From: Michael Webb To: Katherine Hess Date: 12/21/2004 2:27:53 PM Subject: BEDC Reco for Covell Village At the December 20, 2004 meeting the BEDC, on a 8-1 vote adopted the Covell Village Subcommittee recommendation as submitted with the understanding that the Covell Village proposal is still conceptual and subject to further critique and refinement as process allows.

MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE DAVIS CITY COUNCIL AND THE DAVIS PLANNING COMMISSION

JULY 28, 2004 The City Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Davis met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Chambers, 23 Russell Blvd., Davis, California. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Asmundson. Roll Call: Councilmembers Present: Ted Puntillo, Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, Ruth Asmundson.

Councilmembers Absent: Sue Greenwald Planning Commissioners Present: Jennie Baker (Alternate, Mark DuPree, Linda Matthew,

Christopher Ochoa, Sheryl Patterson, Pamela Vann, Terry Whittier

Planning Commissioners Absent: David Robertson

Other Officers Present: City Manager James Antonen, Community Development Director Bill Emlen, Community Development Administrator Katherine Hess

Approval of Agenda The Agenda was approved by consensus.

City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff Communications

None

Public Comment None

Public Workshop: Covell Village Development Applications

Community Development Administrator Katherine Hess introduced the applications submitted for the Covell Village development proposal and outlined the key policy issues that had been identified by staff:

1. Is the geographic area (location and size) of the project appropriate? The City Council has previously determined that the subject site is the most logi-cal to accommodate the next phase of City growth when that is deemed necessary.

2. Is there adequate consideration of the potential redevelopment of the Con-Agra site? What are appropriate links to Oak Tree Plaza and the neighbor-hoods to the east and west of the project site?

3. Is the mix and distribution of housing types, coupled with the affordable housing proposal, consistent with community goals?

4. How should the project be phased? 5. Is the type and amount of non-residential use appropriate? 6. Will the project provide sufficient fiscal protections for the City and the school

system? 7. How do we ensure quality in design and construction of the residential and

non-residential areas? How much flexibility is desired in zoning for the pro-ject?

8. Is the agricultural mitigation proposal adequate? Mike Corbett, representing the applicant Covell Village Partners, introduced the vi-sion and goals for the development proposal.

1

Commissioners and Councilmembers provided comments and questions: • Would the project have required a Measure J vote if it had remained in the

General Plan? • How can we guarantee we’ll get the school site and other positive features? • How do we make sure that what was shown actually happens? • When will park get built? Wow will we maintain all that green space? • City should benefit financially, not just break even. • Need to determine what community needs would be met by this project.

Council won’t approve the project unless it meets community needs and provides community amenities.

• There should be joint planning and true integration between the Covell Vil-lage and Con-Agra sites. Transportation links are not enough.

• Covell Village needs to be more flexible in working with Con-Agra. • Does the proposal preserve the same class of soils as would be lost? • The ag mitigation deadline of April 2005 needs to be addressed. • Concern over potential homesites on the mitigation lands. • With a Council goal of 250 units per year, 210 for this project does not leave

much room for infill. • Has it been determined that the Wildhorse site will never be a school? We

could end up with two school sites and need only one. • Providing a school site is a start, but will the facility be built and opened?

Where will the funding come from? • School should be there before the children arrive. • Need to do a better job at placing school site than Wildhorse, on arterial and

collector streets. • Need to look at the high school as well as elementary; need an agreement

with DJUSD • Concern about alleys. • Interesting mix of housing types • Would like to see more affordable units, higher density. • Community needs housing for people who work here. • If lots are sold, what’s to stop a string of McMansions? • How does this fit with the SACOG Blueprint process? • Is $40,000 loan enough to allow targeted households to purchase homes? • How does amount of retail space compare to other centers? • Is there an analysis to show feasibility of the mixed-use retail center? • How can we ensure that the hotel does not undermine existing businesses? • What are occupancy rates for hotels? • Concern over traffic impacts on Pole Line Road and Covell Boulevard –

would like to slow down traffic coming from Woodland. • Interested in keeping some public uses along Covell Boulevard. • Need to accommodate alternative transportation modes within the site. • Water, sewer, and wastewater are technical issues to be addressed. • Does Fire Department need three acres, or just want it? • Staff has raised the right issues. • Want to make sure EIR shows mitigation if phasing is extended.

Eileen Samitz, representing Citizens for Responsible Planning, spoke on the project applications.

The following speakers made comments on the applications:

2

Lor Sutton

Wanda Winton Leslyn Skog Jean Jackman Samantha McCarthy Odene Mitchell Dapo Okupe Z Smith Dave de la Peña David Suter Lisa Applegate Sherri Huston Nicole Breshear Barry Markman Mel Trujillo Andrew Dowling Joe Chech Rue Shumway Greg Plumpner Grant Schuster Tim Hoban Joe Sherman Trish Whitcombe Eric Johnson

Linda Southworth Dave Shelby Shi-ho Wan Jim Murray-Clark Elizabeth Reya Nora Oldwin Rachel Laforest Louis Boydonovich Gary Shyfall Donna Curley Heurmont Jeanine Pfeifer Rick Moekler Rueben Arevelo Gerald Dickenson Joanne Hatchett Donna Lemongello Steve Hays Michael Levy Ann Privateer Larry Garret Vetter Wright Reina Nya Ricardo Monsalle Maira Metz

Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, KATHERINE HESS, AICP Community Development Administrator

3

November 18, 2004

Staff Report

TO: Katherine Hess, Planning Department Administrator FROM: Vicki Crescitelli, Community Services Administrator SUBJECT: October 21, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission Motions on the

proposed Covell Village Project ________________________________________________________________ At the October 21, 2004 Recreation and Park Commission meeting, Community Development Administrator, Katherine Hess reviewed the Covell Village staff report. Michael Corbett, representing Covell Village Partners, made a presentation on the proposed project. After discussion the following actions took place:

Action: Michael Bartolic moved, Lamar Heystek seconded a motion recommending “to have this item come back to the Recreation and Park Commission and staff after the EIR is completed and staff have had an opportunity to review it”. The motion failed 1-5-0 with Commissioner Michael Bartolic voting for the motion and Commissioners Dana Welch, John Dixon, Lamar Heystek, Charles Russell and Susan Sabatier voting against the motion. Action: Dana Welch moved, Lamar Heystek seconded a motion recommending: 1. “Retention of the linear green as recommended by the developer. 2. The central north-south greenbelt be widened to a minimum of 100 feet, with a greater width adjacent to the multifamily and high-density areas.” Substitute Motion: Lamar Heystek made a substitute motion to preserve the linear greenbelt while broadening the central north-south greenbelt”. The motion failed for lack of a second. Friendly Amendment: Charlie Russell offered a friendly amendment recommending “staff and developers work together to design the central north-south greenbelt to minimize maintenance while still providing a sense of openness. Dana Welch and Lamar Heystek accepted the friendly amendment. Action: The Commission voted on the motion made by Dana Welch, seconded by Lamar Heystek and amended by Charlie Russell recommending:

1. “ Retention of the linear green as recommended by the developer. 2. The central north-south greenbelt be widened to a minimum of 100 feet, with a greater width adjacent to the multifamily and high-density areas. 3. Staff and developers work together to design the central north-south greenbelt

to minimize maintenance while providing a sense of openness".

The motion passed 4-1-1 with Commissioners Dana Welch, John Dixon, Charles Russell and Susan Sabatier voting for the motion, Commissioner Lamar Heystek voting against the motion and Commissioner Michael Bartolic abstaining from the vote. Action: Charlie Russell moved, Susan Sabatier seconded a motion “stating the system proposed by the developer makes appropriate connections with the remainder of the city system”. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Commissioners Dana Welch, John Dixon, Lamar Heystek, Charles Russell and Susan Sabatier voting for the motion and Commissioner Michael Bartolic abstaining from the vote. Action: Susan Sabatier moved, Charles Russell seconded a motion recommending “that the project include developer construction and maintenance of parks and greenbelts concurrently with residential development”. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Commissioners Dana Welch, John Dixon, Lamar Heystek, Charles Russell and Susan Sabatier voting for the motion and Commissioner Michael Bartolic abstaining from the vote. Action: Dana Welch moved, Charles Russell seconded a motion “to state the project contributes to the Parks and Recreation system for the City of Davis and recommending 1) that the project include community-serving recreation uses 2) there be an opportunity for the City to discuss community needs for the privately-owned community building and 3) an analysis be completed on the impact on existing recreational facilities and programs (e.g. athletic fields, pools, recreation programs) if the project does not include recreational facilities”. Friendly Amendment: Lamar Heystek offered a friendly amendment to add the following phrase after the word “uses”: “which could include additional active amenities”. Dana Welch and Charlie Russell accepted the friendly amendment so that the motion reads: “to state the project contributes to the Parks and Recreation system for the City of Davis and recommending 1) that the project include community-serving recreation uses which could include additional active amenities 2) there be an opportunity for the City to discuss community needs for the privately-owned community building and 3) an analysis be completed on the impact on existing

recreational facilities and programs (e.g. athletic fields, pools, recreation programs) if the project does not include recreational facilities”. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. Action: Susan Sabatier moved, Michael Bartolic seconded the motion “that City Council and staff work with developers to explore modifying the northern habitat area to include active water recreation”. The motion passed unanimously. Action: Susan Sabatier moved, Lamar Heystek seconded the motion “that City Council and staff work with developers to explore the idea of adding a mini park close to the high- density area”. The motion failed 2-4-0 with Commissioners Lamar Heystek and Susan Sabatier voting for the motion and Commissioners John Dixon, Michael Bartolic, Charles Russell and Dana Welch voting against the motion.

Dana Welch requested that City staff add the following to the list titled: “Covell Village Application” Public/Commission/Council Issues and Review Assignments”:

• Opportunity to include Sports Fields at Covell Village or Con Agra to avoid Facilities East of Davis.

P:\Commission\*****Rec&Pk\Covell Village Motions

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Mail: 23 Russell Boulevard – Davis, California 95616

Office: 1717 Fifth Street 530/757-5686 – FAX: 530/758-4738 – TDD: 530/757-5666

C.1. 3

SAC Agenda Date: 12/9/2004 Item No: C.1.

Minutes

Safety Advisory Commission

November 4, 2004 Commissioners Present: William Bernheim, Dan Fenocchio, Jeff Roberts, Xiaopei (Chad)

Qi, Andrew Ramos (Alternate) Commissioners Absent: Sean Shimada Staff: Roxanne Namazi, Senior Civil Engineer Sgt. Ton Phan, Police Liaison

Chair: Commissioner Fenocchio called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A. Approval of Agenda

Approved without change.

B. Public Communications/Announcements

None.

C. Consent Items

C.1. Approve and/or Correct Commission Minutes, Meeting of October 7, 2004

Approved Minutes as submitted.

C I T Y of D A V I S

Safety Advisory Commission – Minutes November 4, 2004 Page 2 D. Discussion Items

D.1. Certification of Speed Zones for Radar Enforcement – Updated Surveys, No Change in Speed Limits

Discussion: This item was presented by staff. The following 16 segments were surveyed. The survey justified the posted speed limit on all the segments.

Location Posted Speed

(MPH) Alvarado Avenue (Sycamore Lane to Anderson Road) 25 Anderson Road (Russell Boulevard to Eighth Street) 25

Anderson Road (Covell Boulevard to Corona Dr) 25 B Street (First Street to Fifth Street) 25

B Street (Fifth Street to Eighth Street) 25 B Street (Eighth Street to Fourteenth Street) 25

Cowell Boulevard (Drummond Avenue to 300’ west of Ohlone Street) 25 Eighth Street (B Street to F Street) 25

F Street (Amapola Dr to North City Limits) 35 Fifth Street (B Street to L Street) 30

Fourteenth Street (Oak Avenue to F Street) 25 Portage Bay East (Russell Boulevard to Hudson Street) 25

Russell Boulevard (West City Limit to Arlington Boulevard) 35 Russell Boulevard (Arlington Boulevard to SR113) 35

Villanova Drive (Sycamore Lane to Anderson Road) 25 Villanova Drive (Anderson Road to Oak Avenue) 25

Action: Commission approved staff’s recommendation to maintain the posted speed limits on all the above segments.

D.2. Covell Village Application Review

Discussion: Staff presented the item. The proposed project is 422 acres located at the northwest corner of Covell Boulevard/Pole Line Road and is currently outside of the City limits. The proposal includes 1,515 residential units and 210,000 square feet of non-residential uses, plus parks and open space, a school site, and a fire station.

The Environmental Impact Report is planned to be released by the end of November. The

formal public hearings are anticipated to be in spring 2005.

The project applicant provided and overview of the proposed project. B.J. Klostermann expressed concerns regarding the safety of the bikes and pedestrians in the proposed bike tunnel under Pole Line Road. She requested that the tunnel be located closer to Moore Boulevard for more visibility. Eileen Samitz expressed concerns regarding the proposed Covell Boulevard couplet and the roundabouts proposed on Pole Line Road. Mary French, a resident on Sandpiper Drive spoke against a possible F Street connection.

Safety Advisory Commission – Minutes November 4, 2004 Page 3 The Commission inquired about bike overcrossing vs undercrossing. The applicant

explained that overcrossings are typically much longer than undercrossings and consequently not utilized as much.

The applicant was concerned about the additional cost of expanding the bike tunnels to

accommodate the Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. They propose to present a detailed design to the Commission at the time of Tentative Map submittal.

Action: This was not an action item. The Commission was in general in favor of the

proposed project design as it related to the street and bike path lay out.

Next Meeting: Confirmed for December 9, 2004, at 5:00 p.m. at the Community Chambers. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Roxanne Namazi Senior Civil Engineer j:\pw\trn\sac.mb\sacmin\2004\sacmin04.nov.doc

city council staff reportcity-council.cityofdavis.org/media/default/... · subject: council...

Documents