06 New Harmony Project - City Council - City of Davis

DATE: October 7, 2008 

TO: City Council 

Staff Report 

FROM: Katherine Hess, Community Development Director 

Michael Webb, Principal Planner 

Eric Lee, Assistant Planner 

SUBJECT: New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community 

FILE NO.: Planning Application #61-07 – General Plan Amendment #06-07, Specific Plan 

Amendment #01-08, Rezone #06-07, Final Planned Development #07-07, Design 

Review #27-07, Tentative Map #01-08, Minor Modification #02-08, Appeal #03- 

08; Negative Declaration #07-07 

Recommendation 

Staff recommends that the City Council: 

1. Approve the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the project (PA#61-07); and 

2. Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND#07-07) prepared for the 

project which determines that potential impacts of the project, with mitigation, would be 

less than significant (Attachment 6); and 

3. Adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan to change the land use designation of the 

subject parcels from “Business Park” to “High Density Residential” in a resolution 

batching the amendment with previously approved resolutions of intents to amend the 

General Plan (Attachment 3); and 

4. Adopt a Resolution amending the South Davis Specific Plan to change the land use 

designation of the subject parcels from “Industrial Research” to “Multi-Family” 

(Attachment 4); and 

5. Adopt an Ordinance amending PD 12-87 of the Municipal Code to rezone the subject 

parcels from “Industrial Research” to “Multi-Family” (Attachment 5); and 

6. Approve Planning Application #61-07 for the new construction, site improvements, and 

tentative map based on the findings (Attachment 1) and subject to the conditions 

(Attachment 2) contained in this staff report. 

Executive Summary 

On September 10, 2008 the Planning Commission considered the proposed 69-unit New 

Harmony Affordable Apartment Community and voted 4-2 to deny the project. Although the 

Commission as a whole expressed support for the project concept and felt that it was well- 

10/07/2008 City Council Meeting 06 - 1

New Harmony Apartments – PA#61-07 

designed, they cited their concern about the potential health impacts of exposure to freeway 

traffic on residents as the primary reason for their denial. In particular, the Commissioners cited 

a recent study that found detrimental effects on lung development from traffic exposure for 

children living within 500 meters (1,640 feet) of a freeway in 12 communities in Southern 

California. 

The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial. For its basis, the appeal cited 

inconsistency with applicable City policies and standards and State regulations, inadequate 

findings for denial, and failure of the Planning Commission to proceed in a manner required by 

law. The appeal included additional information and analysis, specifically addressing the air 

quality and health issues raised by the Planning Commission. 

Overall, staff believes the project is well-conceived and is consistent with City policies and 

goals. The project and site improvements represent a significant investment in the property that 

would provide benefits to the neighborhood and community. Importantly, the project targets a 

difficult-to-serve population and provides high-quality affordable housing to help the City meet 

its state housing requirements. However, it also faces challenges. There are neighborhood issues 

related to crime, parking, traffic, and project design that the applicant has worked to address, but 

concerns persist and neighbors have expressed opposition. Comments have indicated a 

perception of an overconcentration of affordable housing sites in the neighborhood and worries 

that existing problems could be worsened by this project. In addition to the neighborhood 

issues, the project faces serious concerns about potential air quality impacts raised by the 

Planning Commission. 

Basic project issues are discussed in the attached Planning Commission staff report. 

Supplemental information and additional discussion of air quality and housing issues are 

presented below. After reviewing the merits of the project and considering the Planning 

Commission action, public comments, and additional analysis, the City Council has the 

discretion to approve, deny, or modify the project as it deems necessary. Staff believes that 

specific neighborhood concerns have been addressed by the project or as conditions of approval 

and that affordable housing is well-dispersed throughout the city and has not created an overconcentration 

of sites in this area. Given the site-specific analysis that has been done for the 

project, and consultation with the local air quality district and other air quality experts, staff also 

believes that the air quality concerns can be and have been adequately addressed and mitigated. 

Council Goals & Objectives 

The project meets the City Council’s goal to “Provide a mix of high quality housing to meet 

community needs.” Consistent with the stated goal, it advances housing options targeting 

affordability, internal growth, and housing needs of special populations. It addresses the 

Council’s specific objectives to: 

Provide slow, steady additions to housing stock, consistent with Council set goals and 

General plan and ensure that any new housing benefits the community. 

Address SACOG fair share growth, natural growth and growth to provide internal 

support for the University. 

Ensure special needs housing – for seniors, for those who have accessibility issues, and 

for people who work but don’t currently live in Davis. 

Work to establish permanent affordability of housing provided through city program and 

requirements for inclusion. 



Provide an array of housing to meet needs of citizens. 

Provide housing for people who live/work in Davis. 

The project would provide permanently affordable visitable and accessible rental housing 

targeted towards local residents and employees in low and very-low income households. The 

units from this project were included in assumptions to meet the Regional Housing Needs 

Allocation for the City’s General Plan Housing Element Update. If the project is not approved, 

other affordable units would need to be identified. 

Fiscal Impacts 

The applicant has paid the required application fees to process the application. Development of 

the project would have an incremental increase in the need for city services which is typically 

offset by increased property taxes. However, in this case the owner can apply for a property tax 

exemption on the residential parcel once it is occupied by low-income residents. Residents would 

contribute to local sales tax revenue thorough local shopping. The office parcel would continue 

to be taxed at the appropriate rate. 

Planning Commission Hearing 

On September 10, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the 

applications and voted 4-2 to deny the project (Attachment 11). The Commission stated their 

support for affordable housing and felt that New Harmony was a well-designed project. They did 

not express concerns about any particular aspect or feature of the project itself. However, 

Commissioners raised significant concerns about the air quality impacts that residents could be 

subjected to and the related health issues. Commissioner Kordana cited a recent study completed 

in Southern California looking at the relationship between exposure to traffic and lung 

development of children (Attachment 8). The study was published in The Lancet on January 26, 

2007. It concluded that exposure to freeways had detrimental effects on the lung-function growth 

of children living within 500 meters of a freeway compared with those who lived at least 1500 

meters away. 

Concerns about noise impacts were also raised, but to a lesser degree. Commissioners questioned 

the adequacy of the Initial Study for air quality and noise. Concern was raised about the lack of a 

numerical threshold for health impacts from vehicle emissions. Staff responded that there is no 

established threshold, but that based on the information available and analysis of the potential 

impact and local conditions, air quality impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level 

with mitigation. The Planning Commission staff report with attachments is included as 

Attachment 12. 

There was substantial public testimony both for and against the project. Issues raised by 

opponents of the project included: 

Expectations about maintaining the existing zoning for commercial development; 

Approval of a precedent that would lead to conversion of other nearby commercial sites; 

Policy to distribute density equally throughout the city; 

Fiscal impacts to the city; 

Need for more small business/office areas that could be accommodated on the site; 

Existing traffic problems and additional traffic created by the project; 

Too high a density on a small site; 



Existing affordable housing at adjacent Owendale site; 

Overconcentration of affordable housing in neighborhood; 

Existing problems with crime in the neighborhood; 

No assurance about the quality of future management; and 

Inappropriate design. 

Supporters of the project also spoke and cited: 

Need for low-income housing the community; 

Excellent project design; 

Mutual housing model that involves residents and works to build their skills; 

Health effects faced by eligible families and children living in poverty and poor housing 

elsewhere; 

Examples of high-quality affordable housing also managed by SMHA in the city; 

Benefits to the community; 

Contribution by the project to school and road fees; 

Question the validity of the assumption that the project would lead to more crime; 

Many residents at other affordable sites are struggling students; and 

Responsibility to all members of the community. 

Appeal of Planning Commission Denial 

The applicant submitted an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission’s denial of 

the project in accordance with City requirements. The project includes amendments to the 

General Plan and Specific Plan and a rezone that would require City Council approval. The 

appeal included additional information and analysis provided by the applicant and their 

consultants (Attachment 7) 

The basis of the appeal cited by the applicant includes: 

1. Inconsistency with the following: 

The City General Plan, including the Housing Element; 

The City Municipal Code, including Chapter 40; 

The Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code Section 65589.5); and 

The anti-discrimination provisions of Gov’t Code Section 65008. 

2. The action is not supported by adequate findings supported by evidence. 

3. The Planning Commission did not proceed in the manner required by law. 

The applicant noted in their appeal that the Planning Commission did not indicate any concerns 

about the project design, sponsor qualifications, or need for the housing type. The applicant also 

stated that the Commission relied too heavily on the general health findings of the Lancet study 

conducted in Southern California. In contrast, the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared for 

the project used an accepted methodology incorporating site-specific data to evaluate health risks 

from air pollution for cancer-related and general health risks. It provided quantifiable, sitespecific 

results that indicated potential health effects would not be significant. 

Denial of an Affordable Housing Project 

The findings necessary to deny an affordable housing project are set forth in Government Code 

Section 65589.5. The findings are specific and intended to prevent discrimination against 

affordable housing projects. The City cannot disapprove an affordable housing project unless it 



makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following 

(Attachment 8a): 

1. The jurisdiction has adopted a valid housing element and the jurisdiction has met or 

exceeded its share of the RHNA for the income category or categories proposed for the 

project. 

2. The project as proposed would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety, 

and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact 

without rendering the project unaffordable. 

3. The denial of the project or imposition of conditions that make the project infeasible is 

required to comply with specific state or federal law. 

4. The development project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource 

preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or 

resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater 

facilities to serve the project. 

5. The project is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and general plan land use 

designation as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the 

jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Government Code 

Section 65588. However, the City cannot deny a project on this basis if: 

a) The project is proposed on a site that is identified as "suitable or available" for 

very low, low or moderate-income households in the housing element and is 

consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even if it is 

inconsistent with the zoning and general plan designation. 

b) If the local agency has failed to identify adequate sites in its housing element to 

meet the RHNA for all income levels within the planning period, then the City 

cannot deny a project in an area designated for residential use in the general plan, 

or an area designated for commercial use if residential is a conditional use in 

commercial areas. 

Staff believes findings 1, 3, 4, and 5 cannot be made to support denial of the project. The City 

does not have an adopted Housing Element and this site has been identified as a potential 

housing location. The Planning Commission in its discussion identified adverse health impacts as 

reasons for its denial, which could fall under the finding 2. However, the standard for making a 

finding of adverse effects must be based on substantial evidence. While the Commission cited a 

health study that found detrimental effects on the lung development of children from exposure to 

highway traffic, it is a generalized study and it has not been demonstrated that the New Harmony 

project, or this project site, would result in a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. 

On the contrary, the Air Quality Analysis and Health Risk Assessment specific to the project 

site, along with other expert opinion and local air quality information indicate otherwise. 

Furthermore, staff believes potential impacts can be further mitigated to avoid an adverse impact. 

At this point, staff does not believe that there is sufficient evidence in the record to deny this 

affordable housing application. The Council does have the ability, however, to determine that 

additional analysis is necessary to justify the Negative Declaration under the California 



Environmental Quality Act. The Council could conceivably determine that an EIR should be 

prepared. Even then, however, the City might be unable to deny the project with the record as it 

currently stands. 

Air Quality Issues 

Air quality concerns for the project come from increased exposure for potential residents from 

highway vehicle emissions. Close proximity to a highway results in an elevated exposure risk to 

toxic air contaminants for potential residents and can have a detrimental impact on children’s 

lung development and contribute to respiratory problems. The health effects of poor air quality 

have been widely studied and known. Multiple strategies have been employed to improve air 

quality in the state by California Air Resources Board (CARB). There are many sources of air 

pollution, but vehicle emissions are a major contributor of pollutants and have been targeted for 

reduction on a state-wide level. Better technologies and cleaner fuels have been mandated and 

have led to substantial air quality improvements. However, existing air quality can be unhealthy 

and results in increased cancer risks and general impacts. CARB estimates that in 2000 the 

overall cancer risk due to all toxic air contaminants monitored in the Sacramento Valley Air 

Basin was 520 in one million and the cancer risk from diesel PM alone was 360 in one million. 

These existing levels are generally considered high and unhealthy. The additional cancer risk 

associated with living at the proposed development was calculated as 16 in one million. Diesel 

exhaust can also aggravate respiratory symptoms and asthma attacks and adversely affect the 

lung development of children. Any project that increases exposure to diesel exhaust increases 

these risks and deserves careful consideration. 

While it is clear that there are health effects from vehicle emissions, it is not clear what, if any, 

additional health risks are acceptable. Yolo Solano County Air Quality Management District 

(YSAQMD) has established a threshold of 10 in one million for exposure to toxic air 

contaminants (TACs) from stationary sources. However, the Air Quality District has no 

regulatory authority over mobile source emissions and there is no established threshold for 

impact significance. The City of Davis is considered the Lead Agency for this project and has the 

discretion to determine the impact significance. Studies continue to shed light on the health risks, 

but are just one piece of the puzzle. The results from the air quality analysis prepared for the 

project along with local air quality information indicate that the increased risk is relatively low 

and can be mitigated. 

Guidelines developed by the CARB and incorporated into the local air quality handbook from 

YSAQMD recommend avoiding residential uses within 500 feet of a highway. However, the 

guidelines also accept that residential projects may be located within this 500-foot distance and 

acknowledge that local agencies must balance other considerations, such as housing and 

transportation needs, economic development, and other quality of life issues. They recognize that 

site-specific design improvements may help to reduce air pollution exposure. 

The New Harmony project is designed to mitigate the highway impacts with buildings pushed 

back from the highway, incorporation of a vegetative evergreen buffer along Cowell Boulevard, 

a building design and location to shield outdoor areas, and indoor noise and air quality measures 

that includes alternative ventilation, electrostatic filters, enhanced windows, and low VOC 

materials. These measures are consistent with potential mitigation measures identified in 

protocol developed by Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District when 

considering the location of sensitive land uses near major roadways in its June 2008 



“Recommended Protocol for Evaluating the Location of Sensitive Land Uses next to Major 

Roadways, Version 2.0”. 

The Air Quality Analysis prepared for the project included a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to 

evaluate the potential health risk from toxic air contaminants from mobile sources on residents. 

The report is included as part of the attached Planning Commission staff report. The Air Quality 

Analysis was reviewed by YSAQMD which determined that the analysis and methodology were 

adequate. The HRA is considered an informational document that is necessary to calculate and 

disclose the potential risk. The table below taken from the SMAQMD Protocol estimates the 

incremental cancer risk of sites based on traffic volumes and their distance from the roadway. 

The information is generalized and provides a very conservative scenario. It is also specific to 

conditions found in the Sacramento area, but is useful for comparison purposes with the project’s 

HRA to show the relative cancer risk. 

The peak hour traffic for I-80 through Davis is 11,600 vehicles (Caltrans 2007). The distance 

from the nearest travel lane to a sensitive receptor on the project site would be 200 feet. The site 

is on the south side of the highway, which is upwind of prevailing winds. According to the table, 

a similar project in the Sacramento area would be expected to have an incremental cancer risk of 

approximately 111 in one million (circled above). This table is intended to be used to screen 

projects in the SMAQMD and identify those projects that should undergo a specific health risk 

assessment. SMAQMD recommends that projects with a risk of 319 in one million or higher 

conduct a HRA. Under this criterion, further analysis of the proposed project would not be 

expected to be required. While the 319 in one million criterion is not intended to represent a 

“safe” risk level or a regulatory threshold, it serves as a point of reference for projects. 

Health Risk Assessment Results 

The SMAQMD estimate of 111 in one million for the site is based only on traffic volume and 

distance from freeway. The HRA calculated an additional risk of 16 in one million for the 



project. This number takes into account actual meteorological data, actual truck percentages and 

other project specific details. It results in a significant difference and a much lower risk. The 

HRA results are based on a very conservative scenario that assumes 70-year, 24-hour-a-day 

outdoor exposure to pollutants. It is also conservative from a location standpoint and calculates 

the risk level at the fence line of the office parcel north of Cowell Boulevard at the point closest 

to the freeway. When adjusted for location, the risk level from exposure where the residences are 

actually proposed falls to about 8.6 in one million. The risk falls even further to 3.1 in one 

million when calculated on a more realistic 30-year exposure period. Additional analysis was 

conducted on the cancer health risk levels for children at the project site and included additional 

parameters specific to children. The results show a carcinogenic risk level of 1.9 in one million 

for a 9-year exposure period. 

The HRA also assessed exposure risk levels for long-term chronic impacts and short-term acute 

impacts that include all non-carcinogenic health effects to people including asthma. The chronic 

risk of 0.010 and acute risk of 0.00026 for the project are well below the YSAQMD threshold of 

1.0 for stationary sources. The Southern California health study which found detrimental effects 

on the lung development of children living near freeways highlights the importance of detailed 

site analysis. The applicant’s air quality consultant provided additional information and analysis 

of the study (Attachment 7). 

The air quality consultant pointed out that the health study generalizes the health effects as 

related to distance from a freeway. Southern California freeways have much higher traffic 

volumes, over 300,000 vehicles per day, and a much higher percentage of diesel-powered trucks, 

as high as 50%, compared to I-80 through Davis with 126,000 vehicles per day and about 6% 

diesel-powered. Specific conditions and exposure levels can vary dramatically. It is not intended 

to minimize the health risks of living near freeways. It is already known that exposure to 

particulate matter has adverse health effects. Children, the elderly, and those with existing 

conditions are most at risk. The HRA results do not directly address the effect on lung 

development which is difficult to quantify. It does address asthma and other respiratory 

problems. The modeling software used in the HRA is made available by the California Air 

Resources Board and is the preferred methodology for evaluating health risks from air pollution. 

It incorporates site specific information and calculates quantifiable risk levels and comparable 

information. It indicates that chronic and acute impacts for the project from exposure to freeway 

traffic would be less than significant. 

Additional Expert Input 

The City solicited additional independent analysis from Dr. Thomas Cahill, a nationallyrecognized 

air quality expert who has also conducted numerous studies in the Davis and 

Sacramento region. His analysis and understanding of local conditions indicated that the air 

quality at the project site would not be expected to be substantially worse than other locations in 

the city. The conclusion was based on two main points: 1) prevailing wind conditions favor the 

New Harmony site and would disperse highway pollutants away from the project; and 2) studies 

including measurements of air quality at the USFS Nursery site in Davis which has a similar 

distance and location on the south side of I-80 as the New Harmony site indicate relatively good 

overall air quality. Dr. Cahill also recommended measures to mitigate impacts and improve 

indoor air quality that have been incorporated. The Cahill analysis is included in the Planning 

Commission staff report attachments. 



Based on the analysis and information provided, staff believes that the project will not result in 

an adverse effect on public health and safety. Project design and mitigation measures for air 

quality also help to reduce highway noise impacts to acceptable levels consistent with thresholds 

established in the General Plan. 

RHNA Requirements and Options 

During 2007-2008, the City engaged in a State-required update to the City’s Housing Element to 

cover the period between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2013. Inclusion of this site in the site 

inventory to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), or identification of other 

sites that would provide the required affordable units, is necessary for the City to meet State 

RHNA requirements and have a certified Housing Element. Having a certified Housing Element 

makes the City and projects within the city eligible for state funding applications and strengthens 

its ability to make land use decisions. Development of this site would provide required low 

income units to enable the City to meet its RHNA requirement under this income category. 

Without this site, the City would need to take both of the following actions in order to meet 

RHNA requirements in all income categories: 

1) Provide RHNA-required low income units on city/agency-owned housing sites. 

Affordable housing units built on City/Agency-owned affordable housing sites (233 and 

239 J Street, 2990 Fifth Street, and 4100 Hackberry Street) would all need to be provided 

as affordable to low-income households. To date, these projects have been envisioned to 

provide a range of affordability from low to moderate income levels. Using these sites to 

comply with the low income unit requirement under RHNA would increase city costs in 

developing these projects, depending upon available state and federal subsidies. This goal 

would likely more than double the original estimates for developing 2990 Fifth Street (an 

increase to approximately $5.5 million), and would require the City to more actively 

pursue development of 4100 Hackberry Street with an estimated cost of $3.5 million. 

Although these costs are higher than anticipated in the current housing budget, not 

developing the New Harmony parcel would release unspent housing funds on that project 

that are likely to total about $5.5 million. Staff believes that adequate housing funds can 

be provided to assist developers of the city/agency-owned sites in providing all lowincome 

units on these sites, but notes that timing is a key factor. If all three projects need 

assistance in fiscal years 08-09 and 09-10, there will be a short-term negative balance 

going into fiscal year 10-11 that would then get repaid prior to yearend and start of the 

next fiscal year. There would likely be no funding availability gap if Woodbridge did not 

need funding until fiscal year 10-11 based on current estimates. Please note that these 

estimates are based on existing construction cost estimates and the continued provision of 

federal HOME funds and housing set-aside funds from the Redevelopment Agency. 

2) Approve three additional moderate income units in another local housing project. 

After adding recently-approved housing units (Verona Project and the addition at the 

University Retirement Community) into the RHNA site list and moving all units 

produced on city/agency-owned sites into the low income unit category, there is a three 

unit gap in the moderate income category requirement. Staff believes that this gap could 

be addressed through the current processing of the Grande site. The current proposal 

includes eight moderate income units, which would address the remaining requirement 

under RHNA. Additional moderate-income units will also be considered with 

applications for the Chiles Ranch proposal on East Eighth Street. 



Tables showing the two potential RHNA Sites Inventory Tables, one with New Harmony and 

one without New Harmony, are included as Attachment 9. While the two steps listed above 

could address RHNA obligations without development of the New Harmony project, it is 

important to recognize the following drawbacks of not developing New Harmony and relying on 

the steps above: 

1. A gap of affordable family rental housing units. New affordable rental housing units 

for families have not been provided since the completion of the 59-unit Moore Village 

project in 2005 and the 18 affordable units included in DaVinci Court in early 2006. 

While we can replace the provision of low income units through ownership products at 

city/agency-owned housing sites, additional units will not be produced for very-low and 

extremely-low income families within the list of sites. Future projects that could provide 

affordable rental housing opportunities for families if approved, such as the Wildhorse 

Horse Ranch and Lewis Cannery Project, would not likely be completed until 2011 or 

2012. 

2. Reduced repayment of funds in affordable ownership housing. City financing of 

affordable ownership housing units requires investment without repayment to a large 

degree. Twenty-five to thirty percent of investments could be repaid in silent second 

loans upon unit resale by the first buyer if the income level were raised to target 

moderate-income households. Even then, the loans would need to be at little to no interest 

in order to provide ongoing affordability in the units. Ownership projects only gain 

revenue for repayment upon the sale of affordable units, limiting their ability to repay 

subsidies. Rental housing projects typically have long-term 55-year loans that allow 

payments to be made overtime through residual receipts in a project. While projects do 

not often have much revenue, it is anticipated that once its primary 30-year loans are 

repaid that long-term loans could be repaid as well. This would be the case with New 

Harmony. 

3. Unpredictability of housing construction costs and funding sources. Costs of 

developing housing can change dramatically the longer construction takes on a project. 

Cost estimates for development of 2990 Fifth Street and 4100 Hackberry Street could be 

higher depending on changes in construction costs and the availability of financing for 

purchasing low-income households. New Harmony would be a more immediate project 

with better known costs. All projects that require city subsidy have a higher level of 

uncertainty due to state and federal impacts on housing funding sources. HOME funds 

from the federal government have seen small but steady decreases in recent years. And 

while redevelopment housing set-aside funds were not affected by the recent state budget, 

there is no guarantee that they will not be impacted by future budgets. 

If approved, New Harmony would likely open in Fall 2010. The City has never been able to 

provide affordable housing for families at extremely low income levels (30% of Area Median 

Income) such as what New Harmony would include; households in this income category tend to 

overpay for housing or use Section 8 rental assistance to pay higher rents. Based on the Housing 

Needs Analysis completed as part of the Housing Element Update, housing affordable to families 

at low and very low incomes is a critical need in the City of Davis. Approximately 1,200 Davis 

workers at these income levels commute into Davis for work rather than reside within the city, 



and sixty-six percent, or 4,436 very low income households renting in Davis are paying 50% or 

more of their income towards housing costs each month. 

Neighborhood Concerns 

Affordable housing often brings out neighborhood opposition and concerns about local impacts. 

The project has involved several neighborhood meetings, update letters, and public noticing. 

Initial comment during preliminary stages raised concerns, but did not identify substantial 

opposition. In more recent comments, opposition to the project has been voiced by residents. A 

common thread of concern expressed was about an over-concentration of affordable housing 

sites in the neighborhood and problems created by the existing affordable apartments that would 

be exacerbated by this project. The project site is adjacent to the affordable Owendale 

Community and is about 2,000 feet from several other affordable project sites. 

Specific neighborhood concerns and questions about traffic, parking, crime, and project design 

have been addressed by the project or as conditions of approval. Effective on-site management 

and good communication with neighbors and the city is also necessary in order to identify and 

address potential problems. Other concerns cited impacts to local schools, city finances and 

services, and property values and disappointment over the potential land use change. The school 

district has reviewed the proposal and has not identified any substantial issues. Provision of 

affordable housing is an important City goal. A report by the California Department of Housing 

and Community Development noted that “no study in California has ever shown that affordable 

housing developments reduce property values.” Pre-existing property values is a more important 

factor. Staff believes that the proposed residential land use is compatible with the neighborhood 

and that the project is a quality design that will add interest to the area. Public comments are 

attached to the Planning Commission staff report. Additional comments received after 

preparation of the Planning Commission report are included as Attachment 10. 

Other comments have supported the project and the need for affordable housing in the 

community. The applicant is committed to ensuring good management and participating in safety 

programs to support a safe community. Analysis of the location of affordable sites shows that 

sites are well-dispersed throughout the city and staff does not believe that there is an overconcentration 

in the neighborhood as a whole. 

Environmental Review 

An Initial Study (Mitigated Negative Declaration) was prepared and has been circulated for 

public review from August 29, 2008 to September 17, 2008. The Initial Study analyzed the 

project and identified potential impacts relative to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, and 

Transportation. The Initial Study determined that potential project impacts with mitigation would 

be less than significant (Attachment 6). Mitigation measures have been included as conditions of 

approval and include: 

Air quality impacts and improve indoor air quality with indoor filters and low VOC 

materials. 

Burrowing owl impacts with preconstruction surveys. 

Construction noise by controlling the equipment, times, and location of earthwork. 

Highway noise on the proposed residential project and potential office development with 

setbacks, alternate ventilation, and enhanced windows for sound attenuation. 

Traffic and circulation impacts by addressing frontage improvements and sight distances. 



Comments on the Initial Study were made relative to air quality and noise impacts. There were 

concerns about health impacts from exposure to traffic, thresholds of significance for mobile 

sources, and noise impacts. The issues have been discussed in this staff report and additional 

analysis and information was provided but do not alter to conclusions of the Initial Study. The 

exposure risk for general health impacts was assessed in the Air Quality Analysis prepared for 

the project and the Initial Study and determined to be at acceptable levels. There is no 

established threshold for emissions from mobile sources. Based on the guidelines provided by 

the Air Quality Management District, site-specific Health Risk Assessment, local air quality 

characteristics, impacts were considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Analysis of 

potential noise impacts demonstrated that the project with mitigation would be able to achieve 

acceptable interior and exterior noise levels consistent with City standards. The project also 

incorporates by reference applicable measures of the South Davis Specific Plan EIR and General 

Plan EIR which evaluated overall buildout of the city and plan area. 

ATTACHMENTS 

1. Findings 

2. Conditions of Approval 

3. Resolution Amending the General Plan Land Use Designation 

4. Resolution Amending the South Davis Specific Plan 

5. Ordinance Amending PD 12-87 of the Chapter 40 of the Municipal Code 

6. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 

7. Applicant Appeal & Response to Air Quality Issues 

8. Effect of Exposure to Traffic on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age 

8A.Statutory Requirements for Denial of Affordable Housing Projects Memo 

9. RHNA Compliance Options 

10. Additional Public Comments 

11. Planning Commission Draft Minutes for September 10, 2008 

12. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments for September 10, 2008 


FINDINGS: 

ATTACHMENT 1 

FINDINGS 

New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community 

PA#61-07 (FPD#07-07, TM#01-08, DR#27-07, MM#02-08, APP#03-08) 

1. Timeliness. The property owner can commence substantial construction within eighteen (18) 

months from the date of this final planned development approval and intends to complete the 

construction within a reasonable time frame. (FPD) 

2. Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the General Plan in that it implements 

the General Plan land use designation for a high-density residential use development and 

contributes to infill housing within the city limits. (FPD) 

3. Appropriateness. The residential development contributes to the mix of housing types within 

the district and is appropriate in area, location, and overall planning for the purpose intended and 

the design and development standards create an environment of sustained desirability and 

stability with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and such development shall meet 

performance standards established by the Planned Development and the Zoning Ordinance. 

Public facilities and open space are adequate. No industrial, research, institutional, recreational, 

or non-residential uses are proposed as part of the project or require consideration. (FPD) 

4. Traffic and Access. The auto, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic system is adequately designed to 

meet anticipated traffic in that the affected roadway segments and will operate in the future 

within city standards for level of service. Vehicular access on the site is available and is 

adequate to serve the project. An adequate number, configuration and location of parking 

spaces have been provided. The project incorporates adequate facilities and good connections 

and access to serve bicycles and pedestrians. (FPD) 

5. CEQA. An Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for this project in 

accordance with CEQA requirements. The Initial Study determined based on the record as a 

whole that potential impacts of the project, with mitigation, would be less than significant. 

Appropriate mitigation measures were incorporated. Public comments were received relative 

to health impacts from exposure to traffic, thresholds of significance for mobile sources, and 

noise impacts. Additional analysis and information was provided but do not alter to 

conclusions of the Initial Study. The project is also subject to applicable mitigation measures 

of the South Davis Specific Plan EIR, certified July 15, 1987 and as revised, and the General 

Plan EIR, certified May 23, 2001, which are incorporated by reference. (FPD, TM, DR, 

MM) 

6. Consistency. The project, as proposed and conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan, 

Subdivision Ordinance, City Zoning Ordinance and any adopted design guidelines for the 

district within which the project is located, in that the project is a residential development in 

a residential area, is consistent with the General Plan designation of High Density 

Residential, the South Davis Specific Plan, and the Planned Development zoning of Multi- 


New Harmony Apts – PA#61-07 Attachment 1 - Findings 

Family, and it meets all applicable General Plan policies, subdivision requirements, and 

zoning and standards. (FPD, TM, DR) 

7. Subdivision Map Act. The project, as proposed and conditioned, meets all applicable 

requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, in that none of the findings that would require 

disapproval of the map apply. (TM) 

8. Site Suitability. The division of land is suitable for the site in that the project has adequately 

considered floodwater drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal 

facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, public health issues, site 

suitability, the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Davis Municipal Code, 

and the General Plan. (TM) 

9. Neighborhood Character. The proposed architecture, site design, and landscape are suitable 

for the purposes of the building and the site and will enhance the character of the 

neighborhood and community, in that the project uses creative and unique design to 

accommodate the residential development in an energy and resource efficient manner while 

minimizing impacts, preserving mature trees, providing adequate landscaping and buffers, 

and maintaining the character of the neighborhood. (DR) 

10. Compatibility. The architectural design of the proposed project is compatible with the 

existing properties and anticipated future developments within the neighborhood in terms of 

such elements as height, mass, scale and proportion, in that the size, scale and mass of the 

buildings are appropriate for the site and in relation to the surrounding buildings. (DR) 

11. Circulation. The proposed project will not create conflicts with vehicular, bicycle, or 

pedestrian transportation modes of circulation, in that the project does not create excessive 

traffic which will degrade existing levels of service upon the local streets, does not create 

additional hazards to bicyclists or pedestrians using the sidewalks, and provides adequate 

parking and access for vehicles and bicycles. (DR) 

12. Appropriate Materials/Methods. The location, climate, and environmental conditions of 

the site are adequately considered in determining the use of appropriate construction 

materials and methods, in that the project incorporates materials appropriate for the climate 

and site. (DR) 

13. Minor Modification Consistency. The completion of the project as proposed is not 

inconsistent with the objectives of the general plan and intent of the zoning regulations, in 

that the minor modifications to the building height are consistent with Zoning Code Section 

40.27.080 which allows minor deviations to building height requirements provided the 

modification does not increase the allowable height by more than ten percent or add another 

habitable story. (MM) 

14. Minor Modification Health & Safety. The minor modification will not adversely affect the 

health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity, 

in that the modification is a minimal increase that is not detrimental to neighboring properties 


New Harmony Apts – PA#61-07 Attachment 1 - Findings 

and the placement and design of the project ensures the scale and height of the building are 

appropriate for the site and compatible with adjacent properties. (MM) 

15. Minor Modification Building Code. The proposed project is consistent with the 

requirements of the Uniform Building Code, in that the project has been reviewed by the 

Building Division with no substantive issues noted and the project is required to obtain all 

necessary building permits prior to construction. (MM) 


ATTACHMENT 2 

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 


PA#61-07 (FPD#07-07, TM#01-08, DR#27-07, MM#02-08, APP#03-08) 

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 

General Conditions 

1. Approval. This approval is for a Final Planned Development and Design Review for a 69unit 

affordable apartment community consisting of two three-story apartment buildings 

(42,132 sq. ft. and 23,643 sq. ft.) and a one-story community building (3,871 sq. ft.), 

landscaping, parking, play areas, a community garden, site, and frontage improvements; a 

Tentative Map for a merger and resubdivision of three lots resulting in two lots, a 3.38-acre 

residential parcel and a 1.16-acre business park/office designated remainder parcel; and a 

Minor Modification to allow an increase in the height of the apartment buildings from 38 feet 

to 41 feet 9 inches, for the project located at the southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and 

Drummond Avenue. The final development standards are as prescribed herein. The 

Tentative Parcel Map No. 4950, being a subdivision of existing parcel, is conditioned upon 

full compliance with Final Planned Development conditions as applicable. 

2. Substantial Conformance. The project shall be completed in substantial conformance to the 

project plans date stamped July 25, 2008 submitted to the Community Development 

Department, except as modified herein. Site changes that substantially affect development 

standards or site design shall require a Revised Final Planned Development. Design changes 

that require modifications to elevations or site features shall be submitted for review and 

approval through the planning review process as a Design Review. Minor changes may be 

approved through the minor improvement application process. Prior to issuance of 

Certificate of Occupancy, all conditions of approval and required improvements shall be 

completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 

3. Permit Expiration. The approval period for this Final Planned Development and Design 

Review shall become null and void after a period of eighteen months from the date of 

approval if substantial construction in good faith reliance on the approval has not 

commenced. The Community Development Department may extend the expiration date for 

one or more periods not exceeding a total of eighteen months. Upon a showing that the 

circumstances and conditions upon which the approval was based have not changed. A 

written request for a time extension, application, required exhibits and plans, and applicable 

fees must be submitted at least thirty days prior to the expiration. 

4. Time Limit. The approval for this tentative map is valid for 24 months after the date of the 

action by the City Council. Extensions may be granted in accordance with Section 66452.6 of 

the Subdivision Map Act. 

5. Applicant’s Responsibility to Inform. The applicant shall be responsible for informing all 

subcontractors, consultants engineers, or other business entities providing services related to 


New Harmony Apts. – PA#61-07 Attachment 2 - Conditions of Approval 

the project of their responsibilities to comply with all pertinent requirements herein in the 

City of Davis Municipal Code, including the requirement that a business license be obtained 

by all entities doing business in the City as well as hours of operation requirements in the 

City. 

6. Conflicts. When exhibits and/or written conditions of approval are in conflict, the written 

conditions shall prevail. 

7. Indemnification. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of 

Davis, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or 

condition of approval of the City of Davis concerning this approval, including but not limited 

to any approval of condition of approval of the Planning Commission or City Council. The 

City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the 

project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the 

right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, 

employees and agents in the defense of the matter. 

8. Run With The Land. The terms and conditions of this approval shall run with the land and 

shall be binding upon and be to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and 

assignees of the property owner. 

9. Fees. The developer shall obtain all appropriate permits, if any, and pay all required fees. 

10. Revocation. In the event of a violation of any of the provisions of zoning regulations, or in 

the event of a failure to comply with any prescribed conditions of approval, the Planning 

Commission may, after public notice and hearing, revoke any final planned development. 

The determination of the Planning Commission shall become final fifteen days after the date 

of decision unless appealed to the City Council. 

11. Other Applicable Requirements. The project approval is subject to all applicable 

requirements of the Federal, State, City of Davis and any other affected governmental 

agencies. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the 

Municipal Code, all other applicable Federal, State and City Ordinances, and applicable 

Community or Specific Plans or Design Guidelines in effect at the time of building permit 

issuance. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant. 

12. Material Board. The design, placement and color of the building materials shall be as 

provided on the approved material sample board, except as modified by the conditions of 

approval for the project. Minor changes in materials and color selection may be made 

through the Community Development Department’s Minor Improvement process. Details 

shall be provided on the working plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development 

Department prior to the issuance of permits. 

13. Design Review Letter. The applicant shall attach a full copy of the approved project letter to 

the Building Application Submittal. (DR) 



14. Signage. All signage shall comply with the requirements of PD 3-84 and Zoning Ordinance 

Section 40.26.020 and may be processed as an administrative Design Review application. 

Signage consistent with an approved sign program or design guidelines may be processed as 

a Minor Improvement. 

15. South Davis Specific Plan. All applicable mitigation measures of the South Davis Specific 

Plan EIR shall apply. 

16. Final Planned Development Standards. PD 12-87 Multi-Family development standards 

shall apply unless superseded by this or subsequent Final Planned Developments. Any 

changes or modification to elevations or site features not in substantial compliance with the 

approved plans shall be submitted for review and approval through the planning review 

process as a Revised Planned Development/Design Review. Minor changes in substantial 

compliance with standards and approved project may be approved by staff as an 

administrative Design Review or Minor Improvement. 

Setbacks 

(Entire Site) 

Maximum 

Building Height 

Accessory 


Off-Street 

Parking Spaces 

PD 12-87 Multi-Family/Zoning Standards 

& Proposed Final PD Standards 

Development 

Standard 

Per Final 

Planned 

Development 

3 stories/38 feet 

Proposed 

Final PD Standards 

Front (Cowell Blvd.): 99 feet 

Rear (South) 

Building C: 15 feet 

Community Bldg: 10 feet* 

Street Side 

(Drummond Ave.): 16 feet 

Side (West): 62 feet 

3 stories/41’-9” feet 

(with minor modification) 

2 stories/25 feet 1 story/22 feet 

121 spaces 

Parking Lot Shading 50% minimum 

122 spaces 

(includes 5 reserve spaces) 

56% 

(22,526 sq. ft.) 



Bicycle Parking 

As Determined 

by CDD Director 

Lot Coverage N/A 

Open Space/ 

Landscaping** 

N/A 

Landscape Area N/A 

140 spaces 

(55 covered, 

85 uncovered) 

23% 

(33,962 sq. ft.) 

48% 

(70,709 sq. ft.) 

30% 

(44,950 sq. ft.) 

* An open trellis attached to the community building may encroach as close as 5 feet from the rear setback. 

**Open Space/Landscaping includes all concrete flatwork, paths, planters, play areas. All areas not included in 

building and asphalt/parking calculations. 

a) Height. The minor modification allows a 10 percent increase in the height up to 41 

feet 9 inches. 

b) Reserve Spaces. Five parking spaces may be held in reserve and used for the 

basketball half-court or other recreational/open space. If determined necessary by the 

applicant/owner or the Community Development Director, the area may be converted 

into parking spaces. Conversion of reserve parking spaces to other recreational/open 

space may be approved as a Minor Improvement. 

c) Future Changes. Future building changes or additions or uses not consistent with the 

standards established in the Final Planned Development and all applicable city zoning 

standards shall require a revised Final Planned Development. 

Prior to Recordation of Parcel Map 

17. Public Improvements. Applicant shall provide construction drawings for the public 

improvements, including but not necessarily limited to street, striping, roadway lighting, 

utilities, signing and striping, to serve the project, subject to the review and approval of the 

City Engineer. Applicant’s engineer shall cooperate with the City to coordinate the design of 

the project’s frontage improvements with the City’s design of the proposed roundabout at the 

intersection. (TM, FPD) 

18. Driveway Access. Access at the westerly driveway may be limited to right turn in and out 

only, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (TM, FPD) 

19. Fair Share Improvement Costs. Applicant to reimburse City for the project’s fair-share 

cost for improvements related to the roundabout, based on the normal frontage improvements 

that would have been required of this project absent the new roundabout. This share will be 

determined by the City at the time of approval of the Parcel Map and improvement 

agreement. Applicant shall secure the value of its estimated share at the time of recordation 



of the Parcel Map. The fair-share cost shall be paid to City prior to issuance of the first 

certificate of occupancy. (TM, FPD) 

20. Sewer Reimbursement. At the time of recordation of the Parcel Map, applicant shall 

reimburse the subdivider of the property to the south for the cost of extending the sewer 

service to serve this site. (TM, FPD) 

21. Remainder Lot. Prior to further development of the designated remainder (Lot 2 as shown 

on tentative map) north of Cowell, the then-owner shall file maps and/or enter into an 

agreement to provide for the construction of public improvements to serve the site, and/or 

provide for the payment of fees related to such development. The remainder will also be 

responsible for reimbursement to City for the remainder’s fair-share cost of the roundabout 

improvements. (TM) 

22. ROW Widths. Final right of way widths will be determined at the time of approval of the 

Parcel Map. (TM) 

23. ROW Vacation. Vacation/abandonment of any existing rights of way and/or easements 

requires approval of City and affected Public Utilities. (TM) 

Prior to Issuance of Building or Demolition Permits 

24. Grease Removal Device. The Community Building kitchen is required to have a grease 

interceptor device, subject to review and approval of Public Works. (DR) 

25. Grading and Drainage Plans. Developer shall prepare grading and drainage plans for this 

project, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, in conformance with city 

Improvement Design Standards, and the Municipal Code. As part of the grading and 

drainage design, Developer shall prepare plans and calculations for post construction best 

management practices pursuant to Attachment 4 of the State Water Resources Control Board 

Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ as outlined in the stormwater conditions below. 

As part of the grading, drainage and landscaping plans, the developer shall prepare guidelines 

for the operation and future maintenance of the best management practices feature, to ensure 

that the features will continue to be effective over the life of the project. (FPD, DR) 

26. State Construction Permit. The project may be subject to the State of California’s general 

permit for stormwater from construction activities (Construction General Permit). Prior to 

construction activities or site disturbance, the applicant shall obtain a Construction General 

Permit, as required. (FPD, DR) 

27. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This project may be subject to and 

may need to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State. The developer shall be responsible 

to contact the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine if additional requirements 

apply to this project. (FPD, DR) 



28. Storm Water Pollutants Specifically. As a part of the foregoing condition regarding 

Grading and Drainage Plans, applicant shall conform to the “Provisions Applicable to 

Individual Priority Project Categories” contained in Section B.3.e, “Parking Lots”, of 

Attachment 4 to State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005- 

DWQ. (FPD, DR) 

29. Permanent BMP’s. Permanent BMP's shall be shown on building plans for the site, and 

shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Post-construction BMPs 

will need to be sized to meet Attachment 4 requirements of the Municipal NPDES permit. 

Applicant shall provide a mainatenance plan for the permanent BMP’s and shall maintain the 

BMP’s in accordance with the plan for the duration of the project’s life. (FPD, DR) 

30. Erosion Control. Prior to commencement of any improvements, an Erosion Control Plan 

shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. This plan shall be subject to the review and 

approval of the City Engineer. This plan shall incorporate the following requirements: 

a) This plan shall include erosion control measures to be applied during rainy season, i.e. 

October through April. These measures may include limitations on earth moving 

activities in sensitive areas during the rainy season. 

b) The Developer shall implement wind erosion and dust control measures to be applied 

on a year round basis. This shall include an effective watering program to be 

implemented during earth moving activities. 

c) All sediments generated by construction activities shall be contained by the use of 

sediment traps, such as silt fences, settling basins, or perimeter ditches. 

d) When building construction will be delayed beyond the next rainy season, the 

Developer shall provide additional erosion control measures as required on each 

individual lot. (FPD, DR) 

31. Cultural Resources. The applicant shall include the following note on all construction 

documents: “If subsurface paleontological, archaeological or historical resources or remains, 

including unusual amount of bones, stones, shells or pottery shards are discovered during 

excavation or construction of the site, work shall stop immediately and a qualified 

archaeologist and a representative of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be 

consulted to develop, if necessary, further measures to reduce any cultural resource impact 

before construction continues.” (FPD, DR) 

32. Ozone Precursors During Construction. In order to minimize the release of ozone 

precursors associated with construction, the following standard requirements developed by 

the Yolo/Solano AQMD shall be implemented and included as notes on all construction 

documents: 

a) Construction equipment and engines shall be properly maintained. 

b) Vehicle idling shall be kept below ten minutes. 

c) Construction activities shall utilize new technologies to control ozone precursor 

emissions, as they become available and feasible. 

d) During smog season (May through October), the construction period shall be 

lengthened so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the 

same time. (FPD, DR) 



33. Air Quality During Construction. The following actions shall be taken during construction 

to minimize temporary air quality impacts (dust) and included as notes on all construction 

documents: 

a) An effective dust control program should be implemented whenever earth-moving 

activities occur on the project site. In addition, all dirt loads exiting a construction site 

within the project area should be well watered and/or covered after loading. 

b) Apply water or dust palliatives on exposed earth surfaces as necessary to control dust 

emissions. Construction contracts shall include dust control treatment in late morning 

and at the end of the day, of all earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earth moving, 

and other site preparation activities. Non-potable water shall be used, where feasible. 

Existing wells shall be used for all construction purposes where feasible. Excessive 

watering will be avoided to minimize tracking of mud from the project onto streets. 

c) Grading operations on the site shall be suspended during periods of high winds (i.e. 

winds greater than 15 miles per hour). 

d) Outdoor storage of fine particulate matter on construction sites shall be prohibited. 

Contractors shall cover any stockpiles of soil, sand and similar materials. No storage 

of uncovered construction debris for more than one week. 

e) Construction-related trucks shall be covered and installed with liners and on the 

project site shall be swept at the end of the day. 

f) Revegetation or stabilization of exposed earth surfaces shall be required in all inactive 

areas in the project. 

g) Vehicle speeds shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces. (FPD, DR) 

34. Landscape Plan. A final landscape plan with detailed landscaping and irrigation 

information shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development and Parks and 

General Services Departments prior to the issuance of building permits. Landscape plans 

shall specify the following: 

a) Location, size and quantity of all plant materials; 

b) A plant legend specifying species type (botanical and common names) container size, 

maximum growth habit, and quantity of all plant materials; 

c) Location of all pavements, fencing, buildings, accessory structures, parking lot light 

poles, property lines, and other pertinent site plan features; 

d) Planting and installation details and notes including soil amendments; 

e) Existing trees on site shall be identified. Identification shall include species type, 

truck diameter at 4’-6” above adjacent grade, and location on site. Trees planned for 

removal or relocation shall be marked on the plans, methodology to preserve trees in 

place shall be provided on the plans; 

f) Street trees to be planted; 

g) Details of all irrigation (drip and sprinkler) as well as all equipment such as backflow, 

controller and meter devices identified; 

h) Two deep watering tubes per tree planted in an isolated parking lot planter island. 

i) Landscaping shall be designed to incorporate permanent Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) for stormwater quality. Procedures for maintaining the BMPs shall be 

provided, subject to the review of Public Works. (FPD, DR) 



35. Landscaping Standards. Trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. Shrubs shall be a 

minimum of 5 gallons in size. Ground cover may be 1 gallon or less in size. Ground cover 

areas shall be supplemented with additional 5-gallon size materials to provide variation and 

texture. (DR) 

36. Parking Lot Shading Plan. Plans and construction shall comply with the City’s Parking 

Lot Shading and Master Parking Lot Tree list guides. A separate parking lot shading diagram 

shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to 

issuance of building permits. The parking lot shading diagram shall include all light poles 

and utility boxes. Parking lot trees shall be located so as to not interfere with parking lot light 

poles and light distribution. (FPD, DR) 

37. Landscape Water Conservation. The project shall comply with the Landscape and Water 

Conservation requirements (Section 40.26.190 of the Davis Municipal Code). Verification of 

compliance with this ordinance shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department 

and shown on the building permit plans set with the irrigation plan. The plant list shall 

incorporate native species whenever possible throughout the site. (DR) 

38. Irrigation Systems. All plant materials, including ground cover shall be serviced with an 

automatic irrigation system. All irrigation systems shall be subject to review and approval by 

the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department prior to 

issuance of permits. (DR) 

39. Site Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any permits or commencement of any 

demolition or construction activity on the site, the applicant shall submit a final construction 

impact site management plan including a project development schedule and “good neighbor” 

information for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works 

Departments. The plan shall include and comply with, but is not limited to, 

a) Public notice requirements and “good neighbor letters” prior to demolition/ 

construction and for periods of significant impacts (noise/vibration/street or parking 

lot closures, etc.) and special street postings, as determined necessary. 

b) Construction vehicle parking plan. 

c) Phone listing for community concerns with names of persons who can be contacted to 

correct problems, hours of construction activity, noise limits, dust control measures. 

d) Provisions for security fencing and temporary walkways. 

e) Public convenience and safety shall be accommodated during construction. Traffic 

control plans shall take into account pedestrians. The traffic control plan shall be 

subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, prior to the beginning of any 

construction within the public right of way. 

f) Work and/or storage of material or equipment within a City right-of-way may require 

the separate receipt of an Encroachment Permit. (FPD, DR) 

40. Biological Clearance Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading/building permit or other 

improvement activities on the site, the applicant shall obtain a biological clearance approval 

from the Community Development Department and City Biologist. A biological survey shall 

be completed consistent with city ordinances and shall comply with required biological 



mitigation measures. Additionally, construction spoils or debris piles must be removed from 

the site or covered within 48 hours to prevent burrowing owls from taking refuge within the 

piles. (FPD, DR) 

41. Encroachment Permit Required. All work within the public right-of-way, including but 

not limited to utilities and grading, shall be explicitly noted with the building plans. It is 

anticipated that construction of the public improvements to serve the site shall be covered by 

the provisions of a subdivision agreement to be entered into at the time of recordation of the 

Parcel Map. The applicant shall obtain all necessary encroachment permits from the City of 

Davis Public Works Department prior to issuance of building permits for all work and 

construction of private improvements which encroach within or over the public right-of-way, 

including, but not limited to, balconies, fire ladders, bike racks, water meters, backflow 

devices, signs. (DR) 

42. Construction Waste Recycling. The project shall comply with the requirements of the 

Citys’ Construction Waste and Demolition Ordinance. (DR) 

43. Utility Plan. A utility plan that shall be approved by all applicable utility providers shall be 

prepared prior to the issuance of permits. The applicant shall prepare a final site plan and 

elevations of all on-site mechanical equipment (including HVAC condensers, transformers, 

switch boxes, backflow devices, PG&E transformers, etc.) and specifics of how such 

equipment shall be screened from public view. This plan, with an approval stamp from the 

City of Davis Community Development Department, shall be submitted by the applicant to 

the utility provider for review. Any necessary changes or deviations from the approved utility 

location and/or screening shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department 

prior to installation and may be subject to discretionary Design Review processing and fees 

by the Planning Department. (DR) 

44. Equipment Screening. All ground mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC 

condensers, backflow devices, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately 

screened in such a manner as to minimize the visual and acoustical impact. Screening may 

include a combination of landscaping and/or masonry or lattice walls or berming to the 

satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Whenever possible, utility 

transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. All gas and electrical meters shall be 

concealed and/or painted to match the building. (DR) 

45. Trash Enclosure. Details of trash enclosure design shall be submitted for review and 

approval by the Community Development Department and the City Engineer prior to the 

issuance of building permits. Trash enclosure and recycle areas shall be adequately screened 

from public view, and shall be architecturally compatible with proposed building design by 

utilizing consistent materials and colors. (DR) 

46. Water Heater Storage. The applicant shall consider measures to separate the water heater 

space and storage space areas, subject to review and approval of the Community 

Development Director. (DR) 



47. Construction and Materials. The plan review set shall include adequate detailing of 

application, construction and materials proposed of all exterior architectural enhancements 

including but not limited to building and window trim, depth of recessed features, grout or 

reveal width/depth, awning materials, trellis construction, building material application such 

as tile/brick. Adequate detailing may necessitate the use of cross-sections. (DR) 

48. Light Fixtures. All wall mounted building lighting shall be submitted for review and 

approval by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of permits. All 

lighting fixtures shall be complementary to the building architecture. Outdoor lighting shall 

be low wattage, the minimum necessary to light the intended area, and fully shielded to 

minimize off-site glare (DR) 

49. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be directed so as to not adversely impact 

traffic or adjacent sites. Light standards shall not exceed 15 feet in total height and shall 

comply with the provisions of the City’s Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance as well as the 

City’s Security Ordinance. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram 

and details of all exterior light fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Community 

Development Department prior to the issuance of permits. (FPD, DR) 

50. Fences. All fence footings and foundations shall be galvanized steel, reinforced concrete, or 

masonry or treated wood materials in contact with the ground. The location and design for 

all fences adjacent to public or private open space, roads, or bicycle paths, shall be provided 

on plans prior to the issuance of permits and shall be subject to review and approval by the 

Director of Community Development. (DR) 

51. Bicycle Parking. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 140 bicycle parking spaces 

unless otherwise adjusted and approved by the Community Development Department and 

Public Works Department. Bike parking shall be conveniently located and dispersed on site 

near entrances. Placement of racks shall be carefully considered to minimize conflicts with 

pedestrian travel. Bicycle racks shall be Creative Pipe Series LR or Urban Accessories Model 

E or an equivalent, with the design and location subject to approval by the Community 

Development Department and Public Works Department. (FPD, DR) 

52. Bicycle Shelter. Final location and design of covered bicycle parking and bicycle shelters 

shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department in 

consultation with the Public Works Department. (DR) 

53. Bicycle Parking Areas. Bicycle parking areas shall be designed to minimize water runoff 

crossing the decomposed granite surface or shall be surfaced with concrete, pavers, or other 

appropriate hardscape material, subject to review and approval of the Community 

Development Department and Public Works Department. (DR) 

54. Trash Enclosure Roof. A canopy or roof shall be incorporated in the trash enclosure design 

to cover the facility, subject to review and approval of the Community Development 

Director. (FPD, DR) 



55. Accessibility/Visitability. All units shall be fully visitable and a minimum of 20% of the 

units shall be accessible, subject to review and approval of the Community Development 

Director and Building Official. (FPD, DR) 

56. Tree Modification Permit. The applicant shall complete any required Tree Modification 

Permit processes prior to removing any trees. The Tree Modification Permit process shall be 

completed prior to demolition/grading permits and tree removal. (DR) 

57. Park In-Lieu Fees. The project is subject to park in lieu fees consistent with Municipal Code 

Section 36.08. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the required in 

lieu fee. (FPD) 

58. Bioswales. Bio swales should not be located adjacent to retaining wall portions of the 

greenbelt. Location and design of bioswales shall subject to review and approval of the 

Parks, Public Works, and Community Development Departments. (FPD, DR) 

59. Photovoltaics. The applicant shall install a photovoltaic system to supply common areas of 

the project site, subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director and 

Building Official. (FPD) 

60. Green Building Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the City’s Green Building 

Ordinance for the project. (FPD, DR) 

61. Greenbelt. Developer shall meet its Greenbelt requirements in one of two ways. Developer 

shall construct the greenbelt improvements west of Drummond, subject to reimbursement by 

City for the costs exceeding Developer's "fair share" of such improvements, which fair share 

will include the value of the land otherwise required of developer as part of their greenbelt 

requirement. Alternatively, Developer may deposit funds with the City to meet Developer's 

fair share requirement. The amount of developer's fair share and the timing of construction 

&/or payment, shall be determined at the time of approval of the Parcel Map by the City 

Council. (FPD, DR) 

62. Fire Requirements. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall be submitted to the 

Fire Department for review and approval. All new development shall comply with the fire 

safety requirements of the California Fire Code and California Building Code as adopted by 

the City of Davis. The project shall incorporate the following items in the construction 

documents: 

a) There are a total of 5 hydrants proposed, only two hydrants are necessary for the 

required fire is1875 gpm, in accordance Table B105.1 of the California Fire Code, 

2007 edition. 

b) Provide a height and area analysis for building B. Currently building B is over area 

with only the increase allowed by Section 506.3 of the California Building Code, 

2007 edition. 

c) The Club house is required to have a automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 

NFPA 13, 2002 edition, due to the inaccessibility of the building. 



d) Fire apparatus shall have access to building C within 150 feet of the southwest corner. 

An addition stairway shall be provided in building C.An all weather surface shall be 

provide for a 40,000 pound two axle fire apparatus. 

e) A fire alarm system is require to monitor the fire sprinkler system and notification 

appliances shall activate upon sprinkler flow in accordance with Section 907.2.9 of 

the California Fire Code, 2007 edition. 

f) The water supply for the NFPA 13R automatic sprinkler system shall be in 

accordance with Fire Prevention Statement “EE”. The automatic sprinkler system 

shall not have its own water supply. (FPD, DR) 

63. MM #1 Indoor Air Quality. In order to minimize air quality impacts and improve indoor air 

quality, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall incorporate the following 

mitigation measures into the building plans subject to review and approval of the Community 

Development Director and Building Official: 

a) Provide an enhanced filtration for all dwelling units using passive electrostatic filters 

and low air velocities or equivalent; 

b) Use low-VOC materials, paints, and carpeting in the dwelling units consistent with 

Build It Green’s Multi-Family Green Building Guidelines. (FPD, DR) 

64. MM #2 Burrowing Owl Mitigation Measure. Prior to any grading or construction on site, a 

preconstruction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted in areas of suitable habitat on 

and within 250 feet of the project site. A minimum of one survey shall be conducted by a 

qualified biologist and shall be completed no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days 

before grading or construction begins. Surveys shall be conducted by walking transects no 

more than 100 feet apart to achieve 100% visual coverage. 

a) If no occupied burrows are found during preconstruction surveys, a letter report 

documenting survey methods and findings should be submitted to the City of Davis 

for review and approval, and no further mitigation is required for potential impacts to 

burrowing owls. 

b) If an occupied burrow is found on or within 250 feet of the project site, potential 

disturbance shall be minimized by establishing a 160-foot radius buffer during nonbreeding 

season (September 1 through January 31) or a 250 foot radius buffer around 

the burrow during breeding season (February 1 through August 31) until the breeding 

season ends, or it is confirmed by a qualified biologist that the burrow is no longer 

occupied. 

c) If destruction of an occupied burrow in the project area is unavoidable, passive 

relocation techniques shall be used during the non-breeding season (September 1 

through January 31) to exclude the owls from the burrow in accordance with DFG 

guidelines (DFG 1995). Following relocation, the project site shall be monitored for 

five consecutive days to ensure that owls are no longer present. If site grading does 

not occur within three days after the five consecutive days of monitoring is 

completed, a biologist shall resurvey the site to determine if owls have reoccupied the 

site. If owls have reoccupied the site, passive relocation and monitoring procedures 

must be repeated. A qualified biologist shall be present during initial grading. If owls 

are present during initial grading, all grading must cease and passive relocation and 

monitoring procedures shall be repeated. Following completion of the passive 



relocation, a letter shall be submitted to the City of Davis documenting the methods 

and results of burrowing owl passive relocation on the project site. If there are no 

occupied nests or if nesting owls have been relocated as described above, the site may 

be maintained per City requirements to prevent occupation by any burrowing owls. 

d) In addition to passive relocation, DFG guidelines suggest mitigating for the loss of 

burrowing owl nesting habitat on protected lands at a ratio of 6.5 acres per pair or 

individual displaced by development. If occupied nests are detected on-site during 

breeding season, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of nesting habitat consistent 

with DFG guidelines. (FPD, DR) 

65. MM #3 Construction Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce potential impacts from shortterm 

construction noise on nearby residences to a less than significant level for development 

of the residential parcel, the project contractor shall implement the following measures to be 

included as notes on grading and building plans. If the residential parcel is developed and 

occupied before construction on the commercial/office parcel occurs, the following measures 

shall also be implemented for construction on the commercial/office parcel. 

a) The project contractor shall permit only one piece of earthmoving equipment 

(including scrapers, haul trucks, rollers, dozers, tractors, front end loaders, hydraulic 

backhoes or excavators, graders, or similar equipment) to operate at any single time 

within 100 feet of the Owendale Community property line; 

b) During all project site excavation and on-site grading, the project contractors shall 

equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and 

maintained mufflers and bafflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards; 

c) The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that 

emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site; and 

d) The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the 

greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive 

receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 

e) During all project construction, the construction contractor shall limit all noiseproducing 

construction related activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, and to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 

Sundays. For the office/commercial parcels which are located more than two hundred 

feet from existing homes, the contractor may request a special use permit to begin 

work at 6 a.m. on weekdays from June 15 th until September 1 st . (FPD, DR) 

66. MM #4 Residential Parcel Traffic Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce impacts from 

traffic noise to a less than significant level, the applicant shall incorporate the following 

measures into the building plans for the residential parcel subject to review and approval of 

the Community Development Director: 

a) A minimum setback of 260 feet from the centerline of I-80 shall be required of all 

noise sensitive land uses on the residential parcels; 

b) An alternate form of ventilation, such as an air conditioning system and trickle 

ventilation, should be required for all residential units directly exposed to I-80 to 

ensure that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time; 

c) Windows with a minimum STC-32 rating shall be required for all residential units 

with façades directly exposed to I-80; and 



d) All outdoor active use areas (including playgrounds, patios, and balconies) shall be 

located on the south side of buildings on the residential parcels. (FPD, DR) 

67. MM #5 Office/Commercial Parcel Traffic Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce impacts 

from traffic noise to a less than significant level, the applicant shall incorporate the following 

measures into the building plans for the commercial parcel subject to review and approval of 

the Community Development Director 

a) A berm a minimum of 4 feet in height above the finished pad elevation and extending 

the length of the property should be constructed on the northern property boundary 

adjacent to I-80; 

b) The berm should be landscaped with dense vegetation and tree cover to aid in 

blocking the line of sight to the traffic noise source; 

c) A minimum setback of 165 feet from the centerline of I-80 should be required of all 

noise sensitive land uses on the office/commercial parcel; 

d) An alternate form of ventilation, such as an air conditioning system, should be 

required for all office/commercial spaces directly exposed to I-80 to ensure that 

windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. (FPD, DR) 

68. MM #6 Traffic/Circulation Mitigation. In order to reduce potential traffic safety and 

circulation impacts to a less than significant level, the applicant shall implement the 

following measures to the satisfaction of City Engineer: 

a) Construct half roadway improvements along project frontage on Cowell Boulevard 

and Drummond Avenue and provide a two-way left turn lane to facilitate access into 

and out of the project site; and 

b) Verify and maintain appropriate sight distances at the driveway locations. (FPD, DR) 

Prior to Commencement of Demolition, Grading, or Construction Activities 

69. Preconstruction Meeting. Prior to the start of any work on-site, the applicant shall request 

and attend a preconstruction meeting to include project superintendent, architect, 

subcontractors, as well as City representatives including Planning, Building and Public 

Works. (DR) 

Prior to Occupancy 

70. Compliance with Conditions. Prior to any use of the project site, all Conditions of 

Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development 

Department. The site and buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to the issuance of 

a certificate of occupancy. (FPD, DR) 

71. Management Policies. Prior to occupancy or final, the applicant shall provide management 

policies to be implemented regarding: 

Elevator use and safety; 

A parking plan and assignment of parking spaces; and 



Shared use of, pool, community building, and other facilities for Owendale and New 

Harmony residents, subject to review and approval of the Community Development 

Director. (FPD, DR) 

72. Recycling Containers. Recycling containers shall be provided in the community building 

and appropriate outdoor areas. (FPD, DR) 

73. Landscaping Inspection. Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved 

landscape plan prior to final certificate of occupancy and inspected by Planning staff. All 

trees shall be planted and staked in accordance with Parks and Community Services 

Department standards. (DR) 

On-Going Conditions 

74. Property Maintenance. Owners are responsible for maintaining all buildings, yards, 

structures, parking areas and other improvements in such a manner, which does not detract 

from the appearance of the surrounding area. Driveway and parking areas shall be 

maintained in an attractive and suitable fashion with any potholes, significantly cracked or 

uneven paving and any other significant damage repaired in a timely fashion throughout the 

life of the project. (FPD, DR) 

75. Landscape Maintenance. The property owner shall be responsible for the installation and 

maintenance of all landscaping from the back of the curb to their project. (FPD) 

76. Affordability. In accordance with City land dedication requirements previously adopted, the 

project will stay affordable in perpetuity and will adhere to all city affordable housing 

requirements, including its Tenant Selection Guidelines and ongoing reporting and inspection 

obligations to the City. (FPD) 

77. Crime Prevention. The New Harmony project shall participate in the city’s Crime Free 

Program. In addition, the project shall host neighborhood watch meetings. (FPD) 


ATTACHMENT 3 

RESOLUTION NO. 08-XXX, SERIES 2008 

RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP OF 

THE CITY OF DAVIS RELATING THE FOLLOWING: 1) TO REDESIGNATE 3.38 ACRES 

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COWELL BOULEVARD AND DRUMMOND 

AVENUE FROM “BUSINESS PARK” TO “RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY”; 2) TO 

REDESIGNATE TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 555 AND 603 L STREET, CONSISTING OF 

APPROXIMATELY 1.45 ACRES, FROM “GENERAL COMMERCIAL” AND “LOW 

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” TO “PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC”; AND 3) TO REFLECT CHANGES 

TO THE CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROPERTIES ON THE BLOCK 

BOUNDED BY SWEETBRIAR DRIVE, EIGHTH STREET, G STREET, AND H STREET 

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the City of Davis General Plan in 

May 2001; and 

WHEREAS, the City of Davis historically have batched General Plan amendments in compliance with 

state laws governing the number of times a local agency can amend its General Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the City Council has approved resolutions of intent to adopt changes to the May 2001 

General Plan as stated in the attached individual resolutions for each amendment; and 

WHEREAS, there are no substantive changes regarding any of the amendments that their resolutions 

have been attached, which would result in a re-consideration of the Council prior actions of approval; 

and 

WHEREAS, the findings for approval of each amendment is included in each attached resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 10, 2008 to 

receive comments and consider amendments to the General Plan; and the City Council held a duly 

noticed public hearing on October 7, 2008 on General Plan Application No. 6-07 and based on oral 

testimony and documentary evidence reviewed during the public hearing, determined that the Initial 

Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project adequately addresses the potential 

environmental impacts of the project and that additional information and analysis was provided but did 

not change the conclusions of the Initial Study and the appropriate findings were made, and that the 

project is also subject to applicable mitigation measures of the South Davis Specific Plan EIR, certified 

July 15, 1987 and as revised, and the General Plan EIR, certified May 23, 2001, which are 

incorporated by reference, and voted to adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan to redesignate the 

land use for 3.38 acres located at the southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond Avenue from 

“Business Park” to “Residential High Density”; and 

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 27, 2008 to 

receive comments and consider amendments to the General Plan and voted 6 to 0 to recommend 

adoption of the amendment to the City Council; and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing 

on March 18, 2008 and based on oral testimony and documentary evidence reviewed during the public 

hearing, determined that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project 

adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project and the appropriate findings were 

made and adopted Resolution No. 08-038 declaring their intent to amend the General Plan of the City of 


Davis to redesignate the land use for the two properties at 555 and 603 L Street from “General 

Commercial” and “Low Density Residential” to “Public/Semi-Public”; and 

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 8, 2006 to 

receive comments and consider the amendment to the General Plan and voted 5 to 0 to recommend 

adoption of the amendment to the City Council; and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing 

on January 9, 2007 and based on oral testimony and documentary evidence reviewed during the public 

hearing, determined that the Initial Study/Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential 

environmental impacts of the project and the appropriate findings were made and adopted Resolution No. 

07-003 declaring their intent to amend the General Plan of the City of Davis to reflect the changes to the 

Core Area Specific Plan for the properties on the block bounded by Sweetbriar Drive, 8 th Street, H 

Street, and G Street. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Davis that the General 

Plan Land Use Map and related sections contained in each resolution attached herein is hereby 

amended consistent with each attached resolution and exhibits. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council for the City of Davis on this Seventh day of October 

2008 by the following votes: 

AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSENT: 

ATTEST: 

________________________________ 

Zoe S. Mirabile, CMC 

City Clerk 

_____________________________ 

Ruth Uy Asmundson 

Mayor 

ATTACHMENTS 

1. Resolution to Amend the General Plan for 3.38 acres at the southwest corner of Cowell 

Boulevard and Drummond Avenue 

2. Resolution to Amend the General Plan for 555 and 603 L Street 

3. Resolution to Amend the General Plan for properties on the block bounded by Sweetbriar 

Drive, 8 th Street, H Street, and G Street 


ATTACHMENT 1 


RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DAVIS 

TO REDESIGNATE 3.38 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER 

OF COWELL BOULEVARD AND DRUMMOND AVENUE 

FROM “BUSINESS PARK” TO “RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY” 

WHEREAS, the two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 069-020-84 and 069-020-85) consisting of 

approximately 3.38 acres located at the southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond 

Avenue, as shown in Exhibit A, are currently designated “Business Park” on the General Plan Land 

Use Map; and 

WHEREAS, amending the General Plan land use designation for the subject parcels to “Residential 

High Density” will be consistent with new zoning, and applicable policies and plans; 

WHEREAS, the Residential High Density designation will allow for compact multi-family and infill 

development in an existing neighborhood, convenient to local-serving retail, meet housing demand, 

reduce pressure for peripheral growth, and facilitate transit and pedestrian/bicycle travel; and 

WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment is appropriate in that it is compatible and consistent with 

existing and adjacent residential and business park uses. 

WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment will not adversely impact the general welfare of residents 

or businesses within the area; and 


receive comments and consider amendments to the General Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2008 and based on oral 



environmental impacts of the project and the appropriate findings were made. Comments were 

received concerning air quality and noise impacts. Additional analysis and information was provided 

but did not change the analysis or conclusions of the Initial Study. Supplemental information was 

provided to the City Council. The project is also subject to applicable mitigation measures of the 

South Davis Specific Plan EIR, certified July 15, 1987 and as revised, and the General Plan EIR, 

certified May 23, 2001, which are incorporated by reference. 


Plan of the City of Davis is hereby amended to redesignate the land use for the subject property from 

“Business Park” to “Residential High Density”, as shown in Exhibit A: 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council for the City of Davis on this Seventh day of 

October 2008 by the following votes: 


AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSENT: 

ATTEST: 

________________________________ 



_____________________________ 


Mayor 



ATTACHMENT 2 


RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DAVIS 

TO REDESIGNATE TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 555 AND 603 L STREET, 

CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.45 ACRES, FROM “GENERAL COMMERCIAL” 

AND “LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” TO “PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC” 

WHEREAS, the two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 070-360-029 and 070-344-009) consisting 

of approximately 1.45 acres located at 555 and 603 L Street, as shown in Exhibit A, are currently 

designated “General Commercial” and “Low Density Residential” on the General Plan Land Use Map; 

and 

WHEREAS, amending the General Plan land use designation for the subject parcels to 

“Public/Semi-Public” will be consistent with new zoning, and applicable policies and plans; 

WHEREAS, the Public/Semi-Public designation will provide an appropriate, centrally-located site for 

community facilities and public/semi-public uses; and 

WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment is appropriate in that it is compatible and consistent with 

existing and adjacent uses. 

WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment will not adversely impact the general welfare of residents 


WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 27, 2008 to 

receive comments and consider amendments to the General Plan and voted 6 to 0 to recommend 

adoption of the amendment; and 

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 18, 2008 and based on oral 



environmental impacts of the project and the appropriate findings were made and adopted Resolution 

No. 08-038 declaring their intent to amend the General Plan of the City of Davis to redesignate the land 

use for the two properties at 555 and 603 L Street from “General Commercial” and “Low Density 

Residential” to “Public/Semi-Public”; and 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Davis that the General 

Plan of the City of Davis is hereby amended to redesignate the land use for the two subject properties 

from “General Commercial” and “Low Density Residential” to “Public/Semi-Public”, as shown in 

Exhibit A: 


October 2008, by the following votes: 


AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSENT: 

ATTEST: 

________________________________ 



_____________________________ 


Mayor 



ATTACHMENT 3 


RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DAVIS TO 

REFLECT CHANGES TO THE CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROPERTIES 

ON THE BLOCK BOUNDED BY SWEETBRIAR DRIVE, EIGHTH STREET, G 

STREET, AND H STREET 

WHEREAS, the City of Davis General Plan incorporates by reference the Core Area Specific Plan 

as the General Plan requirements, including the Land Use Map of the Core Area Specific Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Map shows the subject properties on the block bounded 

by Sweetbriar Drive, 8 th Street, H Street, and G Street (APNs: 070-163-01; 070-163-02; 070- 

163-03; 070-163-07; 070-163-05; 070-163-06; 070-163-08) within the Core Area Specific Plan, 

but the properties are omitted from the Core Area Specific Plan Land Use Map and the 

amendment is necessary to ensure consistency and clarify the land use designation; and 

WHEREAS, the Core Area Specific Plan identifies the properties around the perimeter of the 

Downtown Core as Retail with Offices and establishes a Transitional Boundary which is to 

function as a transition between higher intensive commercial and office land uses and lower 

intensive uses where a mixture of commercial office and residential uses are encouraged and 

considered appropriate for mixed use zoning; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed Specific Plan Land Use designation of “Retail With Offices” is 

appropriate for the site, compatible with the existing and adjacent land uses, and consistent with 

the current Mixed Use Zoning for the site and other properties zoned Mixed Use within the Core 

Area Specific Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the project site is directly contiguous with the northern boundaries of the Core Area 

Specific Plan and expansion of the boundaries of the Specific Plan to include these properties is 

consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan and Core Area Specific 

Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the General Plan incorporates by reference and appendix the Land Use Map of the 

Core Area Specific Plan and as such, must also be amended to reflect the change the boundaries and 

in the land use designation; 

WHEREAS, the amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Map is attached 

hereto as Exhibit A; and 

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 8, 2006 

to receive comments and consider the amendment to the General Plan and voted 5 to 0 to 

recommend adoption of the amendment to the City Council; and 


WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on January 9, 2007 and based on 

oral testimony and documentary evidence reviewed during the public hearing, determined that the 

Initial Study/Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the 

project and the appropriate findings were made and adopted Resolution No. 07-003 declaring their 

intent to amend the General Plan of the City of Davis to reflect the changes to the Core Area 

Specific Plan for the properties on the block bounded by Sweetbriar Drive, 8 th Street, H Street, 

and G Street. 


Plan of the City of Davis is hereby amended to reflect the changes to the Core Area Specific Plan, 

as shown in Exhibit A. 


October 2008 by the following votes: 

AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSENT: 

ATTEST: 

_____________________________ 



________________________________ 

Ruth Uy Asmundson, Mayor 


Proposed Addition with 

Retail with Offices Designation 

EXHIBIT A 


ATTACHMENT 4 


RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SOUTH DAVIS SPECIFIC PLAN OF 

THE CITY OF DAVIS TO REDESIGNATE 3.38 ACRES LOCATED AT 

THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COWELL BOULEVARD AND DRUMMOND AVENUE 

FROM “INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH” TO “MULTI-FAMILY” 

WHEREAS, the two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 069-020-84 and 069-020-85) consisting of 

approximately 3.38 acres located at the southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond 

Avenue, as shown in Exhibit A, are currently designated “Industrial Research” on the South Davis 

Specific Plan Land Use Map; and 

WHEREAS, amending the South Davis Specific Plan land use designation for the subject parcels to 

“Multi-Family” will be consistent with new General Plan “Residential High Density” designation and 

new “Multi-Family” zoning, and applicable policies and plans; and 

WHEREAS, the South Davis Specific Plan is largely built out and applicable policies and land use 

designations have been incorporated into the 2001 General Plan Update; and 

WHEREAS, the Multi-Family designation will allow for compact multi-family and infill development 

in an existing neighborhood, convenient to local-serving retail, meet housing demand, reduce pressure 

for peripheral growth, and facilitate transit and pedestrian/bicycle travel; and 

WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendment is appropriate in that it is compatible and consistent with 

existing and adjacent residential and business park uses; and 

WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendment will not adversely impact the general welfare of residents 



receive comments and consider the amendment to the Specific Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 7, 2008 and based on oral 



environmental impacts of the project and the appropriate findings were made. Comments were 

received concerning air quality and noise impacts. Additional analysis and information was provided 

but did not change the analysis or conclusions of the Initial Study. Supplemental information was 

provided to the City Council. The project is also subject to applicable mitigation measures of the 

South Davis Specific Plan EIR, certified July 15, 1987 and as revised, and the General Plan EIR, 

certified May 23, 2001, which are incorporated by reference. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Davis that the South 

Davis Specific Plan is hereby amended to redesignate the land use for the subject property from 

“Industrial Research” to Multi-Family”, as shown in Exhibit A: 


PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council for the City of Davis on this seventh day of October 

2008 by the following votes: 

AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSENT: 

ATTEST: 

________________________________ 



_____________________________ 


Mayor 



ATTACHMENT 5 

ORDINANCE NO. ________ 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 40 OF THE DAVIS MUNICIPAL CODE 

FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 12-87 TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3.38 ACRES 

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COWELL BOULEVARD AND 

DRUMMOND AVENUE FROM “INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH” TO “MULTI-FAMILY” 

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 

SECTION 1. REZONING 

Amend the PD 12-87 zoning for two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 069-020-084 and 069- 

020-085) constituting approximately 3.38 acres located at the southwest corner of Cowell 

Boulevard and Drummond Avenue to change the zoning from “Industrial Research” to “Multi- 

Family”, as shown on the map marked Exhibit A. 

SECTION 2. PURPOSE 

The purpose of the Multi-Family district, pursuant to PD 12-87 of Chapter 40 of the Davis 

Municipal Code, is to stabilize and protect the residential character of the district, and to 

promote, insofar as compatible with the intensity of land use, a suitable environment for family 

life. 

SECTION 3. USES 

The principal permitted, accessory, and conditional uses of this district shall be consistent with 

the Multi-Family district of PD 12-87, as amended from time to time. 

SECTION 4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

The development standards shall be the provisions of the Multi-Family district of PD 12-87, as 

amended from time to time, and as approved in the Final Planned Development. 

SECTION 5. FINDINGS 

The City Council of the City of Davis hereby finds: 

1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 10, 2008 to receive comments 

and consider the rezone. 

2. The proposed project with adoption of the amendments to the General Plan and South Davis 

Specific Plan will be in conformance with the General Plan and Specific Plan, which would 

designate the site Residential High Density and Multi-family, respectively. 

3. The proposed project with the adoption of the proposed rezone will be consistent with the 

Zoning Ordinance, as the purpose of the Multi-Family District is to stabilize and protect the 

residential character of the district, and to promote, insofar as compatible with the intensity 

of land use, a suitable environment for family life. 


4. Public necessity, convenience and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed 

amendment, given that the Multi-Family designation provides for areas to meet City housing 

needs. 

5. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and based 

on oral testimony and documentary evidence submitted during the public hearings and in 

light of the whole record, the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential 

environmental impacts of the project and determines that impacts of the project will be less 

than significant; and that pertinent mitigation measures would apply to the development of 

the subject site. Comments were received concerning air quality and noise impacts. Additional 

analysis and information was provided but did not change the analysis or conclusions of the 

Initial Study. Supplemental information was provided to the City Council. The project is also 

subject to applicable mitigation measures of the South Davis Specific Plan EIR, certified July 

15, 1987 and as revised, and the General Plan EIR, certified May 23, 2001, which are 

incorporated by reference. 

6. The project constitutes a multi-family development of sustained desirability and stability in 

harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE 

This ordinance shall become effective on and after the thirtieth (30 th ) day following its adoption. 

INTRODUCED on October 7, 2008, AND PASSED AND ADOPTED on ______, 2008, by the 

following vote: 

AYES: 

NOES: 

ABSENT: 

ATTEST: 

______________________________ 



________________________________ 


Mayor 



ATTACHMENT 6 

Initial Environmental Study (Mitigated Negative Declaration) 

Project Title: New Harmony Affordable Apartments 

Project Number: Planning Application #61-07 (GPA#6-07, SPA#1-08, REZ#6-07, FPD#7- 

07, DR#27-07, TM#1-08, MM#2-08 ND#7-07) 

Project Location: Southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond Avenue 

(Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 069-020-084; 085; & 046) 

Project Sponsor: Owner/Applicant 

Sacramento Mutual Housing Assoc. 

3451 5 th Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 95817 

Lead Agency: City of Davis, Community Development Department 

23 Russell Boulevard, Davis, CA 95616 

Owner/Applicant 

Yolo Mutual Housing Assoc. 

430 F Street 

Davis, CA 95616 

Contact Person: Eric Lee, Assistant Planner; (530) 757-5610; elee@cityofdavis.org 

Date Prepared: August 26, 2008 

Project Description 

The subject project is proposing to construct a 69-unit affordable apartment community on a 

vacant parcel in south Davis. Development would consist of approximately 70,000 square feet 

made up of two three-story apartment buildings (41,256 sq. ft. and 23,175 sq. ft.) and a one-story 

community building (3,871 sq. ft.). There would be one, two, and three-bedroom apartments 

ranging in size from 667 square feet to 1,130 square feet. The project includes landscaping, 

parking, play areas, a community garden, bicycle path/greenbelt, site and frontage improvements 

(Figure 1 – Site Plan). Proposed density would be approximately 20 units/gross acre on the 

proposed residential parcel. 

The project site consists of three parcels (1.09 acres, 2.56 acres, and 0.75 acres) and is split by 

Cowell Boulevard which cuts through the site. A tentative map would create two parcels, a 3.38acre 

residential parcel on the south side of Cowell Boulevard and a 1.16 business park/office 

parcel on the north side of Cowell Boulevard. The apartment development would be constructed 

on the 3.38-acre parcel on the south side of Cowell Boulevard. The remaining 1.16-acre 

triangular parcel to the north is not proposed for development as part of this project. It could be 

developed in the future with an office-type use consistent with the zoning and is not affected by 

the project. 

While the current zoning allows a multi-family use with a Conditional Use Permit, the project 

includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from “Business Park” to 

“Residential High Density,” a Rezone of the residential parcel from “Industrial Research” to 

“Multi-Family,” and a Specific Plan Amendment to reflect the changes. The office parcel would 

retain its Business Park designation and Industrial Research zoning. The project includes a Minor 

Modification to allow an increase in the height of the apartment buildings from 38 feet to 41 feet 


Attachment 6 

9 inches. This Initial Study is intended to analyze and address potential environmental impacts 

related to development of the office site as well as the residential site. However, development of 

the office site would require additional entitlements which are subject to further environmental 

review. 

N 

Figure 1. Site Plan 

Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses 

The project site is a vacant parcel located at the southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and 

Drummond Avenue in south Davis (Figure 2 – Vicinity Map). It consists of a 3.35-acre site on 

the south side of Cowell Boulevard proposed for residential development and a triangular-shaped 

1.16-acre parcel on the north side with possible future office uses. The southern site includes a 

0.75-acre parcel owned by the City as a land dedication site on which 16 units are required to be 

built. The rest of the site which includes the triangular piece was acquired by the applicant to 

allow for comprehensive development of the site. 

The project site is flat. Vegetation consists primarily of a mix of non-native grasses with several 

small trees scattered about. The triangular parcel is a disturbed site and contains blacktop 

remnants of Chiles Road and power lines. 

The site is bounded by a mix of uses and facilities. Adjacent parcels include a vacant site 

approved for single-family residential development (Willowcreek Commons) to the east and the 

existing Owendale Community apartment complex to the south. A commercial/business park site 

Initial Study – City of Davis August 26, 2008 

New Harmony (PA#61-07) Page 2 of 45 


Attachment 6 

to the west contains a UC Davis bookstore warehouse. The project site faces Interstate 80 to the 

north with the Union Pacific Railroad line on the other side and parallel to I-80. A vacant 

office/business park parcel is located to the northeast at the opposite intersection corner. Singlefamily 

residences surround the general area. A City well site with driveway access borders the 

site on its western boundary. A designated City bicycle pathway and greenbelt runs along the 

southern border between the site and the Owendale Community and would be improved as part 

of this project. 

113 

Russell Blvd 

Covell Blvd 

.-, 80 

ÊÚ 

Vicinity Map 

Project 

Location 

New Harmony 

Cowell & Drummond 

PA #61-07 


Location 

I-80 

Figure 2. Vicinity Map 

0 100 200 300 Feet 




Attachment 6 

Policy, Plan, and Zoning Consistency 

The project site is designated as Business Park in the General Plan and is zoned for Industrial 

Research. The residential use is consistent with the zoning on the site which allows multifamily 

residences as a conditional use and the General Plan designation which allows it as a secondary 

use. The site is also located within the South Davis Specific Plan (SDSP) area which established 

general land uses for the 826-acre area and designates the site for industrial research/office. The 

proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezoning of the site are 

proposed to ensure consistency. The proposed residential use is consistent with the overall buildout 

of the city under the General Plan. 

Potential future office use on the triangular parcel is consistent under the existing designation 

and zoning and would remain consistent with this project. Development of the triangular parcel 

would require additional review and entitlements. The subject project, with mitigation and 

conditions, will be consistent with applicable policies including infill development, housing, 

mobility, design, energy, noise. 

Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning/Designations 

Existing Use Zoning General Plan Designation 


Site 

Vacant 

PD 12-87 (Industrial Research) 

Proposed (PD 12-87 Multi-Family) 

Business Park 

Proposed (Residential High Density) 

North I-80 Freeway N/A N/A 

South 

Ownendale 

Apartments 

PD 1-92 

(Multi-Family) 

Residential - Medium Density 

Vacant/ 

PD 6-87 

Business Park; 

East Willowcreek (Office Research) 

Neighborhood Retail 

Commons PD 2-02 (Commercial) 

West 

UC Davis 

Warehouse 

PD 10-72 Business Park 

Previous Relevant Environmental Analysis 

Development occurring on or adjacent to the project site has been previously addressed in the 

following environmental documents which are incorporated here by reference and which 

addressed the cumulative impacts of development throughout the community. Potential impacts 

related to this specific proposal on the site are analyzed as part of this initial study. 

Program EIR prepared for General Plan Update 

The potential environmental impacts of development of the subject property were analyzed as 

part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City’s 2001 General Plan Update 

and are incorporated here by reference. The EIR evaluated the overall buildout of the City under 

the General Plan to the year 2010. The action to approve the General Plan adopted a statement 

of overriding considerations for significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of traffic and 

impacts on roadway systems, air quality, and noise among others (Resolution No. 01-72 May 23, 

2001 certifying the General Plan Update Final EIR and approving the General Plan, Exhibit B – 

Statement of Overriding Considerations). 




Attachment 6 

Final EIR for the South Davis Specific Plan 

In 1987 the City of Davis adopted the South Davis Specific Plan (SDSP) and a comprehensive 

revision of the General Plan. The SDSP established land uses for approximately 826 acres in 

South Davis area south of Interstate 80. At that time the City Council certified Environmental 

Impact Reports for these plans. It included adoption of mitigation measures and a statement of 

overriding considerations for significant unavoidable impacts relative to the loss of agricultural 

lands, loss of natural resources, and traffic congestion (Resolution No. 5796 July 15, 1987 

certifying the Final EIR for the South Davis General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan). 

Other Agencies Approvals: (permits, financing approval, or participation agreements, etc.) 

The project has applied for Federal block grant money under the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development’s HOME Program. Projects receiving federal money require review 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to address historic or cultural 

resources that might be affected. The project was reviewed by the State Historic Preservation 

Office which determined that no historic properties would be affected by the project. The project 

is also undergoing NEPA review. Other funding sources for the project include the California 

Department of Housing and Community Development and tax credits from the California Tax 

Credit Allocation Committee. No other agency approvals are required. 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MITIGATION 

The following is a summary of the proposed mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. 

Air Quality 

The project already incorporates design measures to minimize exposure risks. The residential 

buildings are pushed back from the highway as far as possible. A generous landscape area along 

Cowell Boulevard will be planted with a buffer of trees that will help to filter out pollutants. 

Units will have alternative ventilation to allow for fresh air without the need to open the 

windows. The project layout uses Building B as a buffer for the rest of the site, particularly for 

the open space areas. The active outdoor areas are located internal to the site and direct exposure 

to the freeway is minimized. 

The project is also subject to potential noise impacts from traffic on I-80 which is discussed in 

Section XI (Noise). It includes noise mitigation measures for maximizing the setback from the 

freeway, higher quality windows for insulation, alternative ventilation for units, and siting of 

outdoor areas where they would be buffered from the freeway. Because the noise impact is 

related to freeway traffic, these measures are also effective at addressing air quality impacts. 

Overall, the project has already incorporated design elements and features or includes mitigation 

that would help to minimize potential air quality impacts. Because polluted outdoor air brought 

into a building with poor ventilation by an inefficient filter could actually raise pollution levels 

and because people spend a majority of their time indoors, additional measures are necessary to 

address indoor air quality. 

MM#1 Indoor Air Quality. – In order to minimize air quality impacts and improve indoor 

air quality, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall incorporate the following 




Attachment 6 



a) Provide an enhanced filtration for all dwelling units using passive electrostatic filters and 

low air velocities or equivalent; 

b) Use low-VOC materials, paints, and carpeting in the dwelling units consistent with Build 

It Green’s Multi-Family Green Building Guidelines. 

Biological Resources 

The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea) is a Federal Bird of Conservation 

Concern and state Species of Special Concern which is known to exist in the City of Davis and 

the vicinity. It inhabits vacant parcels and fields similar to the project site. Although none have 

been observed on the project site, burrowing owls were observed on an adjacent property in 

2003. The burrowing owl is an opportunistic species that will occupy existing burrows and could 

potentially move onto the site to nest prior to construction. Disturbance and impacts to nesting 

burrowing owls as a result of the project are potentially significant unless mitigation is 

incorporated. 

MM#2 - Burrowing Owl Mitigation Measure - Prior to any grading or construction on site, 

a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted in areas of suitable habitat on 






documenting survey methods and findings should be submitted to the City of Davis for 

review and approval, and no further mitigation is required for potential impacts to 




season (September 1 through January 31) or a 250 foot radius buffer around the 

burrow during breeding season (February 1 through August 31) until the breeding season 

ends, or it is confirmed by a qualified biologist that the burrow is no longer occupied. 

c) If destruction of an occupied burrow in the project area is unavoidable, passive relocation 

techniques shall be used during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 

31) to exclude the owls from the burrow in accordance with DFG guidelines (DFG 1995). 

Following relocation, the project site shall be monitored for five consecutive days to 

ensure that owls are no longer present. If site grading does not occur within three days 

after the five consecutive days of monitoring is completed, a biologist shall resurvey the 

site to determine if owls have reoccupied the site. If owls have reoccupied the site, 

passive relocation and monitoring procedures must be repeated. A qualified biologist 

shall be present during initial grading. If owls are present during initial grading, all 




Attachment 6 

grading must cease and passive relocation and monitoring procedures shall be repeated. 

Following completion of the passive relocation, a letter shall be submitted to the City of 

Davis documenting the methods and results of burrowing owl passive relocation on the 

project site. If there are no occupied nests or if nesting owls have been relocated as 

described above, the site may be maintained per City requirements to prevent occupation 

by any burrowing owls. 




breeding season, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of nesting habitat consistent with 

DFG guidelines. 

Noise 

Excavation, grading, and construction activities can result in a substantial noise increase. 

According to the noise report, construction noise can range as high as 91 dBA Lmax at 50 feet 

during the noisiest phases. Although it would not be a permanent increase in noise levels, it can 

be an intermittent and sustained increase during the construction phase. Existing residential units 

and outdoor activity areas are located within 50 feet of potentially active construction areas and 

could be impacted. Because the noise from construction equipment potentially exceeds the 

City’s standards for acceptable level for construction activities of 86 dBA at the edge of the 

property plane, the potential impact is considered significant unless mitigation is incorporated. 

The closest existing noise sensitive receptor to the office/commercial parcels are residential land 

uses located southeast of the project site on Koso Street. They are approximately 465 feet away 

and would not be significantly impacted by construction noise. However, the proposed 

residential units are approximately 160 feet from potential active construction areas on the 

commercial/office site. If the residential parcel is developed and occupied before construction 

begins on the commercial/office site, construction-related noise would impact sensitive receptors 

and mitigation would be required. 

MM#3 - Construction Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce potential impacts from shortterm 






a) The project contractor shall permit only one piece of earthmoving equipment (including 

scrapers, haul trucks, rollers, dozers, tractors, front end loaders, hydraulic backhoes or 

excavators, graders, or similar equipment) to operate at any single time within 100 feet of 

the Owendale Community property line; 

b) During all project site excavation and on-site grading, the project contractors shall equip 

all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained 

mufflers and bafflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards; 




Attachment 6 

c) The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted 

noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site; and 


greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive 


e) During all project construction, the construction contractor shall limit all noise-producing 

construction related activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, and to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. For the 

office/commercial parcels which are located more than two hundred feet from existing 

homes, the contractor may request a special use permit to begin work at 6 a.m. on 

weekdays from June 15 th until September 1 st . 

The traffic noise modeling indicated that the closest outdoor sensitive receptor areas on the 

residential parcel would be exposed to future traffic noise levels from I-80 of up to 73.9 dBA 

CNEL. It assumed a minimum setback of 260 feet from the centerline of I-80. This level 

exceeds the City’s threshold of 70 dBA for acceptable exterior noise level. Using standard 

construction, it would also exceed the threshold of 45 dBA for interior noise level for residential 

uses. Alternate ventilation would be necessary to allow windows to remain closed. Even with 

windows closed, the interior noise level calculated at 48.9 dBA would exceed the residential 

standard under standard construction. Further noise reduction features such as enhanced 

building materials would therefore be necessary. The project would result in a significant noise 

impact to development on the residential parcel unless mitigated. 

MM#4 - Residential Parcel Traffic Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce impacts from 




a) A minimum setback of 260 feet from the centerline of I-80 shall be required of all noise 

sensitive land uses on the residential parcels; 


ventilation, should be required for all residential units directly exposed to I-80 to ensure 

that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time; 

c) Windows with a minimum STC-32 rating shall be required for all residential units with 

façades directly exposed to I-80; and 


located on the south side of buildings on the residential parcels. 

Existing traffic noise levels on the office/commercial parcel range up to 78.7 dBA CNEL which 

exceeds the acceptable threshold of 75 dBA for commercial exterior noise level and 55 dBA for 




Attachment 6 

commercial interior noise level using standard construction methods. According the Acoustical 

Analysis, a berm at least four feet high above the finished pad elevation of a building would 

reduce exterior noise level from the highway traffic to 69.2 dBA CNEL which is within the 

conditionally acceptable range. Dense landscaping could provide further noise reduction. 

Noise levels on the first floor of a building on the office parcel could be reduced to an acceptable 

interior noise level of 54.2 dBA CNEL (69.2 dBA – 15 dBA = 54.2 dBA) with windows open 

and with standard construction. However, upper floors would not benefit from a berm and would 

be exposed to traffic noise levels up to 77.1 dBA CNEL. In order to meet interior standards, 

windows would need to remain closed, requiring alternate ventilation. The project would result 

in a significant impact to development on the office/commercial parcel unless mitigated. 

MM#5 - Office/Commercial Parcel Traffic Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce impacts 




a) A berm a minimum of 4 feet in height above the finished pad elevation and extending the 

length of the property should be constructed on the northern property boundary adjacent 

to I-80; 

b) The berm should be landscaped with dense vegetation and tree cover to aid in blocking 

the line of sight to the traffic noise source; 

c) A minimum setback of 165 feet from the centerline of I-80 should be required of all noise 

sensitive land uses on the office/commercial parcel; 

d) An alternate form of ventilation, such as an air conditioning system, should be required 

for all office/commercial spaces directly exposed to I-80 to ensure that windows can 

remain closed for a prolonged period of time. 

Transportation 

The traffic analysis was reviewed by the City of Davis Public Works Department which 

concurred with the general conclusions. However, the report identified potential access and 

safety impacts related to the project that could have potential adverse effects and therefore 

requires mitigation: 

MM#6 - Traffic/Circulation Mitigation. In order to reduce potential traffic safety and 



a) Construct half roadway improvements along project frontage on Cowell Boulevard and 

Drummond Avenue a continuous left turn lane to facilitate access into and out of the 

project site; and 

b) Verify sight distances at the driveway locations. 




ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 

Attachment 6 

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, 

involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or as indicated by the 

checklist on the following pages. 

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality 

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy/Mineral Resources 

Geology and Soils Hazards/Hazardous 

Materials 

Hydrology/Water Quality 

Land Use and Planning Noise Population and Housing 

Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation 

Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of 

Significance 

CONCLUSION: 

The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following 

reasons: 

1. It will have only temporary or short-term construction impacts, such as dust and equipment 

emissions, noise and truck traffic. 

2. It will not generate a significant amount of additional vehicles, noise or emission levels. 

3. It will not affect rare or endangered species of animal or plant, or habitat of such species. 

4. It will not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or pre-history. 

5. It will not result in a significant effect on air, water quality or ambient noise levels for 

adjoining areas. 

6. It will not be subjected to unacceptable risk of flooding or major geological hazards. 

7. It will not have a substantial aesthetic affect. 

8. It will not breach any published national, state or local standards relating to solid waste. 

9. It will not involve the possibility of contaminating public water supply or adversely affecting 

groundwater. 

10. It will not result in or add to a violation of the waster discharge requirements applicable to 

local sewer systems as prescribed by California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

11. It will not occur to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 

12. It will not result in adverse cumulative impacts. 

13. It will not result in adverse growth-inducing impacts. 

14. It will not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. 

15. It will not conflict with the City’s General or Specific Plans. 




DETERMINATION: 

On the basis of this initial evaluation: 

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 

environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 

environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the 

mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A 

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the 

environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the 

environment, but at lease one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an 

earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been 

addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on 

attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially 

significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is 

required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 

August 26, 2008 

Signed Name Date 

Eric Lee City of Davis 

Printed Name Agency 

Attachment 6 




EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 

I. AESTHETICS 

Would the proposal: 

a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 

b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 

effect? 

c) Create light or glare? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: 

a) No Impact. The project site is not located on a designated scenic vista or scenic highway. 

b) & c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to construct an affordable 

apartment community on a vacant lot. The site is visible from Interstate 80 and adjacent 

roadways. The project would be a residential development located near residential areas. The 

project is subject to design review of the layout and building which ensures that the design would 

be compatible with the surrounding area and appropriate for the site. Therefore, aesthetic impacts 

are considered less than significant. 

Development of the site will add light and glare to area that did not previously exist. However, 

the project will be required to comply with the City’s Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance which 

ensures that light is fully shielded and glare from the project site is minimized. Therefore, the 

impacts are considered less than significant. 

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 


a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 

or Farmland of Statewide Importance 

(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared 

pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Programs of the California 

Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 



No 

Impact 

No 

Impact 


II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 

use, or a Williamson Act contract? 

c) Involve other changes in the existing 

environment which, due to their location or 

nature, could result in conversion of 

Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a)-c) No Impact. The project site is currently zoned for development. It does not convert any 

agricultural land and does not support or affect any agricultural operations. Therefore, the 

project is considered to have no impact. 

III. AIR QUALITY 


a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 

to an existing or projected air quality 

violation? 

b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 

c) Alter air movement, moisture, or 

temperature, or cause any change in climate? 

d) Create objectionable odors? 

DISCUSSION: 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

The project site is located within the Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District 

(YSAQMD) which is part of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin and designated by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the Sacramento Federal Ozone Non-Attainment 

Area. The non-attainment area consists of all of Sacramento and Yolo counties, and parts of El 

Dorado, Solano, Placer and Sutter counties. Air quality within YSAQMD violates state and 

federal standards for ozone and state standards for particulate matter (PM10). YSAQMD is 

responsible for limiting the amount of emissions that can be generated throughout the district by 

various stationary and mobile sources. 



No 

Impact 

No 

Impact 


Attachment 6 

Motor vehicles are the major source of ozone through emission of reactive organic gasses (ROG) 

and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are precursor components of ozone. PM-10 sources primarily 

derive from construction, demolition, farming activities and road dust. The YSAQMD has 

established numeric thresholds of significance in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2007) to 

evaluate the air quality impacts of construction-related and operational-related activities based on 

amount of ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions that would be produced. The thresholds are 10 tons 

per year of ROG, 10 tons per year of NOX, and 80 pounds per day of PM10. The YSAQMD 

Handbook also identifies examples of projects that would be expected to exceed these thresholds 

of significance based on size characteristics. For a low-rise apartment project, it is 345 units. For 

an office building, it is 870,000 square feet. Similar projects falling under these size categories 

are not expected to exceed District thresholds for ROG, NOX, and PM10. These hypothetical 

examples are intended as a screening tool to estimate operational emissions only. Projects that do 

not exceed operational thresholds may still exceed thresholds during construction. 

The proposed project for 69 units on the proposed residential parcel is well under the screening 

threshold for operational emissions. Development on the triangular, office parcel is currently 

undetermined and not included in this project. However, potential development of the 1.16acre, 

office parcel could not accommodate a building that meets or exceeds the screening 

threshold. The Business Park designation limits the floor area ratio of a building to no more than 

50 percent of the site. Nevertheless, an Air Quality Analysis was prepared for the project by 

LSA Associates. The analysis used Urban Emission Model (URBEMIS 2007) software to model 

potential long-term emissions associated with the proposed project as well as constructionrelated 

emissions. It provides more detailed information on project emissions. Results were 

compared against YSAQMD emission thresholds to determine significance. 

Toxic Air Contaminants 

In addition to pollutants produced by the project, potential exposure of sensitive receptors to air 

pollutants is a concern. The residential units are considered a sensitive receptor. Exposure to 

pollutants from certain manufacturing processes and particulate emissions from diesel engines 

pose a cancer risk and are considered Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The YSAQMD 

Handbook establishes thresholds of significance for exposure to TACs from stationary sources. 

Exposure from stationary sources in excess of the following thresholds would be considered a 

significant air quality impact: 

Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) equals to 

10 in one million (1 x 10 -5 ) or more; and 

Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants would result in a 

Hazard Index equal to 1 for the MEI or greater. 

The Handbook notes that these thresholds are used for stationary sources, but do not address 

TACs from mobile sources. The Air Quality District has no permitting authority or other 

regulatory authority over mobile sources and there is currently no specific mobile source TAC 

threshold. The YSAQMD Handbook cites the California Air Resources Board (ARB) which 

recommends avoiding the siting of sensitive land uses such as housing within 500 feet of 

freeways. Studies have shown that sensitive uses within this distance risk substantial exposure to 

toxic air contaminants (TACs). California’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazard 




Attachment 6 

Assessment (OEHHA) has determined that exposure to TACs from mobile sources poses cancer 

risks and may cause other health problems to nearby residents. 

Mobile Source Emissions 

The proposed residential parcel is located approximately 100 feet from the nearest travel lane on 

Interstate 80. The entire site is within 500 feet of the freeway and the nearest building would be 

approximately 200 feet away from the travel lane. ARB specifically states in its Air Quality 

Land Use Handbook that their recommendations against siting residential land uses within 500 

feet of high-traffic roadways and freeways is advisory. It acknowledges that local agencies must 

also balance other considerations, such as housing and transportation needs, economic 

development, and other quality of life issues. 

ARB has not provided specific thresholds of significance for TACs from mobile sources. As a 

result, the Air District recommends that facilities within the distance threshold are considered to 

be exposed to an elevated health risk requiring further analysis. To determine the health risk for 

the project site, LSA conducted a health risk analysis using ARB’s health risk model, HARP, 

which includes the EPA dispersion model ISCST3. The model provides a detailed estimate of 

concentrations considering site and source geometry, source strength, distance to receptor, and 

site specific meteorological data. 

While the 10 in one million threshold for stationary sources serves serve as a guideline when 

considering exposure risks to mobile source emissions, it is not a strict threshold for mobile 

sources. The authority to determine the impact significance falls to the Lead Agency. 

Determination of the significance would consider site-specific factors and the overall context. 

CONCLUSION: 

a), c), & d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Quality Analysis prepared for the project 

determined that impacts relative to construction and operational emissions would be less than 

significant. The project does not violate any air quality standards or significantly contribute to an 

existing air quality violation. It does not have any significant impact on climate change or with 

objectionable odors. 

Construction Emissions 

The project does result in an increase in short-term construction-related emissions. URBEMIS 

results from the Air Quality Analysis for construction-related emissions for ROG, NOX, and 

PM10 do not exceed the district thresholds. In addition, standard City conditions for construction 

activities address construction-related emissions and ensure that potential impacts are less than 

significant. Results are summarized in the Table 1 below. 

Table 1. Project Construction Emissions (2008) 

ROG 

(tons/year) 

NOX 

(tons/year) 

Office Development Emissions 0.73 2.01 19.33 

Apartment Development Emissions 0.83 2.34 25.03 

YSAQMD Threshold 10 10 80 

PM10 

(lbs/day) 




Attachment 6 

Additionally, large heavy-duty, diesel-powered equipment can produce toxic air pollutants 

during construction. In the short-term, diesel exhaust can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation, 

headaches, and tightness of the chest. However, these are not generally considered severe effects 

and are not permanent. Construction activity will be short-term and there are no sensitive 

receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project that would require additional analysis. 

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. 

Operational Emissions 

Long-term impacts are associated with stationary and mobile sources. The project will contribute 

ROG and NOX (two ozone precursors) and PM10 from the consumption of natural gas and 

electricity for the residential and office activity and from new vehicle trips generated by the uses. 

The URBEMIS results indicate that the project would not exceed the YSAQMD emissions 

threshold for apartment and office development. Results are summarized in Table 2 below. 

Therefore, impacts to air quality from operational emissions are considered less than significant. 

Table 2. Project Operational Emissions (2008) 

ROG 

(tons/year) 

NOX 

(tons/year) 

Office Development Emissions 1.47 2.23 11.45 

Apartment Development Emissions 1.88 1.50 16.62 

YSAQMD Threshold 10 10 80 

PM10 

(lbs/day) 

Carbon Monoxide Effects on Traffic 

Vehicular trips associated with the project will contribute to congestion at intersections and 

roadways in the project area. Concentration of carbon monoxide from vehicle idling time and 

traffic flow conditions is a potential impact if it reaches unhealthy levels. High carbon monoxide 

levels are generally associated with unacceptable levels of service or extremely high traffic 

volumes. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project KD Anderson & 

Associates and discussed in the Section XV (Transportation/Circulation), the project will not 

reduce the nearby intersections or roadway segments to unacceptable levels of service. 

Therefore, the project is considered to have a less than significant impact. 

The project is also consistent with General Plan policies that encourage alternative transportation 

modes and land use planning to reduce air quality impacts. The site is served by Yolo Public 

Transit and the Unitrans bus service. It is also directly adjacent to a City bicycle path. 

Climate Change 

The project also produces greenhouse gases that can impact the climate and contribute to global 

warming. Impacts to the project by climate change would not be specific to the project, but 

would be expected to impact the region as a whole. As of yet there are no established measures 

or requirements for individual projects to address the hazards of climate change that could 

include changes in water supply and quality, extreme weather events, changes in rainfall 

patterns. 




Attachment 6 

Greenhouse gas emissions from the project are produced from the materials and construction of 

the project, energy usage for normal activities, and vehicle emissions. However, information and 

thresholds are not yet available to determine the incremental impact of a project. The City is in 

the process of determining baseline information and formulating policies to address the City’s 

contribution to climate change. The project is consistent with General Plan policies for land use, 

circulation, air quality that seeks to coordinate land use and transportation planning and 

encourage alternatives automobile transportation and a reduction in vehicle usage. Standard City 

requirements for water conservation, energy efficiency, and the recently adopted Green Building 

Ordinance help to reduce potential impacts. Although the project would have an incremental 

contribution within the context of the City and region, the individual impact is considered less 

than significant. 

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts 

Other projects within the city will be under construction simultaneously with the proposed 

project. Generation of fugitive dust and pollutant emissions from cumulative construction 

activities for this and other projects may result in short-term increases in air pollutants. Within 

the vicinity of the project, there is one approved project for 21 single-family units (Willowcreek 

Commons) on a 2-acre vacant parcel located to the immediate east of the project site. There were 

no significant air quality impacts related to the project. The site is not currently under 

construction and it is unknown when development of the site will take place, but construction 

could potentially occur simultaneously. 

Implementation of standard requirements and best management practices during construction for 

this and other projects would reduce cumulative construction impacts to a less than significant 

level. The AQMD considers projects that are considered individually less than significant to be 

cumulatively less than significant. Operational emissions from the project are not significant. 

The project would also be consistent with the General Plan which adopted a statement of 

significant but unavoidable impacts relative to air quality. Therefore, the proposed project is 

considered to have a less than significant cumulative impact on air quality and climate change. 

Potential cumulative impacts to air quality and climate change are also addressed in Section 

XVII(c) (Mandatory Findings). 

Odors 

The proposed project is a residential project with future potential office uses on the undeveloped 

lot. There are no objectionable odors associated with these uses. The site is surrounded by other 

residential and commercial uses. There may be odors associated with construction equipment, 

but the activity is temporary and short-term. Therefore, the project is considered to have a less 

than significant impact. 

b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. According to the Air Quality Analysis prepared 

by LSA Associates, the proposed project is not expected to generate any Toxic Air Contaminants 

(TACs) that would result in significant air quality impacts. Additionally, surrounding land uses 

are residential or office/warehouse in nature and there are no nearby stationary sources of TACs 

that would adversely impact sensitive receptors. However, traffic on I-80 and local streets emit 

TACs in diesel exhaust which have been determined to pose cancer risks and other non-cancer- 




Attachment 6 

related health problems. The Air Quality Analysis included a health risk assessment (HRA) to 

determine the risk to residents of the project from diesel exhaust particulates. 

Health Risk Assessment 

The health risk assessment by LSA Associates was conducted as recommended by OEHHA 

Guidelines and by the ARB. The assessment looked at existing PM10 emission rates using traffic 

data for I-80, determined the PM10 concentrations, and translated the concentrations to health 

risk values. The methodology assumes 100 percent outdoor air exposure 24 hours-a-day for a 

70-year period. It determined the acute emission impacts and the carcinogenic and chronic 

impacts of the project. 

Acute Emissions Impacts 

Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects causing irritation of the eyes, nose, 

throat, and lungs, and other effects. It can also aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and 

asthma attacks. However, according to Air Quality Analysis, the available data from studies of 

humans exposed to diesel exhaust are not sufficient for deriving an acute noncancer health risk 

guidance value. While the lung is a major target organ for diesel exhaust, studies of the gross 

respiratory effects of diesel exhaust in exposed workers have not provided sufficient exposure 

information to establish a short-term noncancer health risk guidance value for respiratory effects. 

The maximum acute hazard index for the project was calculated as 2.6 x 10 -4 . 

Carcinogenic and Chronic Impacts 

According to studies, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk 

of any toxic air contaminant. Improvements to diesel fuel and diesel engines have already 

reduced emissions of some contaminants and when fully implemented are expected to lower 

emissions substantially. However, reductions in emissions from fuel and engine improvements 

may be offset by increased vehicle miles. The results of the HRA are summarized in Table 3. 

They indicate that the maximum exposed individual (MEI) inhalation cancer risk associated with 

living at the proposed development for 70 years would be exposed to an inhalation cancer risk of 

16 in 1 million. The maximum chronic hazard index would be 0.010. 

Table 3. Inhalation Health Risks from Vehicle Sources on I-80 

Carcinogenic Inhalation Chronic Inhalation Acute Inhalation 

Health Risk Health Index Health Index 

MEI onsite 16 in 1 million 0.010 2.6x10 -4 

While the thresholds for stationary source discussed above provide a reference point, no 

established threshold currently exists to evaluate the impacts from mobile source emissions. 

Indices for chronic inhalation, 0.010, and acute inhalation, 2.6x10 -4 , both fall well below the 

YSAQMD noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1.0 for stationary sources and their potential impacts 

would be considered less than significant. However the carcinogenic inhalation risk of 16 in one 

million would exceed the stationary source threshold of 10 in one million. There are a number of 

mitigating factors related to mobile sources, the HRA methodology, the general air quality 

characteristics of the City and project site, and measures already incorporated into the project 

design that deserve consideration. They provide a better context for understanding and 




Attachment 6 

evaluating the results and allow the potential impact of exposure to cancer-causing TACs to be 

considered less than significant with mitigation. 

HRA Methodology 

The HRA includes assumptions that are consistent with OEHHA guidelines. It produces results 

showing a very conservative scenario. The results assume exposure to outdoor air will be 24hours 

a day, 350 days a year for a 70-year period. In its conclusions, the Air Quality Analysis 

prepared for the project discusses some of the mitigating factors. It does not take into account 

that people in residential dwellings spend most of their time indoors. One report to the ARB 

estimated that the average individual spent 22.5 hours per day indoors. Indoor air quality can be 

made much cleaner than outdoor air with the use of filters. Additionally, the 70-year period is 

based on a lifetime residency. However, the U.S. EPA estimates that the average residence time 

is 9 years. The Air Quality Analysis concludes that “the exposure estimate likely overstates the 

potential increased health risk for residents.” 

The HRA also uses 2008 emission rates that do not take into account anticipated technological 

improvements that would occur over the 70-year period of analysis and potentially lower the 

exposure risk. The risk from diesel PM is expected to decrease over time. The ARB has 

developed the “Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled 

Engines and Vehicles,” which sets a goal of 75% reduction of diesel PM by 2010 and an 85% 

reduction by 2002. For example, when anticipated emission rates for 2020 were used in the 

HRA for the project, it resulted in an exposure risk of only 3.8 in one million. However, as 

previously stated future reductions in emissions from technological improvements could be 

offset by increased traffic. For this reason, the risk is calculated more conservatively. Even if 

technological improvements are discounted, a reduced exposure period for residents at this site to 

a more realistic amount and systems that improve indoor air would substantially reduce the 

exposure risk results. 

Regional Context 

The YSAQMD Air Quality Handbook recommends avoiding locating sensitive land uses within 

500 feet of freeways because of the elevated exposure risk, but acknowledges that sensitive land 

uses may be located within this distance due to other considerations. It also recognizes that sitespecific 

design improvements may help to reduce air pollution exposure. The YSAQMD does 

not provide specific measures or measurements. However, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District (SMAQMD) has drafted recommendations for evaluating the 

location of sensitive land uses in its “Recommended Protocol for Evaluating the Location of 

Sensitive Land Uses next to Major Roadways, Version 2.0” (June 2008). 

The table below taken from the document estimates the incremental cancer risk of sites based on 

traffic volumes and their distance from the roadway. The information is generalized and provides 

a very conservative scenario. It is also specific to conditions found in the Sacramento area, but is 

useful for comparison purposes with the project’s HRA to show the relative cancer risk. 




Attachment 6 

The peak hour traffic for I-80 through Davis is 11,600 vehicles (Caltrans 2007). The distance 

from the nearest travel lane to a sensitive receptor on the project site would be 260 feet. The site 

is on the south side of the highway, which is upwind of prevailing winds. According to the table, 

a similar project in the Sacramento area would be expected to have an incremental cancer risk of 

approximately 111 in one million (circled above). This is significantly more than the HRA 

results for the project of 16 in one million. This table is intended to be used to screen projects in 

the SMAQMD and identify those projects that should undergo a specific health risk assessment. 

SMAQMD recommends that projects with a risk of 319 in one million or higher conduct a HRA. 

Under this criterion, the proposed project would not be expected to undergo further analysis. 

While the 319 in one million criterion is not intended to represent a “safe” risk level or a 

regulatory threshold, it is a point of reference for projects. 

In addition to the risk values calculated in the SMAQMD table, the existing background cancer 

risk from air contaminants in the Sacramento Valley area provides additional context. The ARB 

estimates that in 2000 the overall cancer risk due to all toxic air contaminants monitored in the 

Sacramento Valley Air Basin was 520 in one million. The cancer risk from diesel PM alone was 

360 in one million. These existing levels are generally considered high and unhealthy. 

Davis Air Quality 

Additional independent analysis of the project’s air quality impacts was performed by Dr. 

Thomas Cahill on behalf of the City. It included information on local air quality characteristics. 

Dr. Cahill is a scientist associated with the University of California at Davis. He specializes in 

airborne particulates and climate studies and has published numerous air quality studies. His 

research has included studies of the Davis and Sacramento area. 




Attachment 6 

In his analysis of the project, Dr. Cahill drew some general conclusions based upon his research 

in the area and his understanding of local air quality conditions. He notes that the dominant 

characteristic of the site is that it lies upwind of Interstate 80 in most prevailing wind conditions. 

Both higher traffic speeds and the prevailing northerly winds would help to dilute the highway 

pollutants and direct them away from the site. Consequently, air quality at the site would be 

expected to have minor highway influence. Stagnant winter air would pose the greatest threat of 

I-80 influence, but the analysis cited two studies indicating that it would not be a problem and 

recommended enhanced vegetation and enhance indoor air filtration to mitigate the potential 

impact. 

The results of Cahill’s study showed that the dominant source of aerosols in Davis was from 

regional sources in the Sacramento Valley, not from sources within the City. The study also 

concluded that vehicular traffic was only a modest contributor to local PM10 (or PM2.5) aerosols 

in the City. Traffic-derived concentrations were generally less than 5% of the ambient 

background values. The results indicate that local traffic sources including traffic from I-80 have 

less influence on local air quality than regional sources. Measurements were also taken at Florin 

Road and the Florin-Stockton intersection in the Florin area of Sacramento and provide some 

comparison. The results the Florin study indicated a more significant influence of traffic on local 

PM10 aerosols in that area than occurred in the Davis area. The authors postulated that the 

vehicle mix in the Florin area consisted of more diesel vehicles, heavy trucks, and older vehicles. 

Stoplights, idling, and congestion are also likely contributors to the difference. 

Another study sampled pollutants at a various sites along a transect from Yolo County through 

Sacramento to El Dorado County. One of the Davis sites in the study was the USFS Nursery 

located approximately 164 feet south of I-80 and Chiles Road. This location is comparable to the 

project site and had some of the lower pollution measurements of all the sites despite its 

proximity to the freeway. Measurements were comparable to or less than the other Davis site 

located in northwest Davis. These wintertime measurements did not show any significant 

wintertime increase in pollutants for the Davis site. 

Implications for Project Site 

Although the Davis studies did not specifically look at the impact of proximity to freeways, they 

indicate that the basic air quality at the project site is not expected to be substantially worse than 

elsewhere in the city. When the overall regional air quality is unhealthy any additional exposure 

risk is undesirable. The information also indicates that the additional exposure risk at the project 

site and in the Davis area would be substantially less than in the Sacramento metropolitan area 

where local concentrations and the contribution from local sources can be higher. Nevertheless, 

health studies cited by the ARB have shown that an elevated exposure risk exists at sites close to 

high traffic roadways. 

Without an established threshold for mobile source emissions, the above analysis and studies 

provide a context for understanding the degree of the exposure risk at the project site relative to 

other areas in the City and region. Because there is still an elevated risk, City staff believes that 

the exposure risk from mobile sources is less than significant with mitigation. Measures are 

necessary to minimize the potential risk. 




Attachment 6 

Potential Mitigation Measures 

The SMQMD Recommended Protocol includes potential mitigation measures to reduce exposure 

levels. They include increasing the project distance from the freeway, site design to create a 

buffer, enhanced vegetative plantings, and other filtering systems. It cited a study measuring the 

filtration effectiveness of leaves and needles. The study found that all forms of vegetation were 

able to remove 65-85 percent of very fine particles at wind velocities below 1.5 meters per 

second (roughly 3 miles per hour) with redwood and deodar cedar being the most effective. 

The project already incorporates design measures to minimize exposure risks. The residential 

buildings are pushed back from the highway as far as possible. A generous landscape area along 

Cowell Boulevard will be planted with a dense buffer of trees. A large percentage of the trees 

will consist of redwood trees planted that will be planted 10 feet off center and will be effective 

in filtering out pollutants. Units will have alternative ventilation to allow for fresh air without the 

need to open the windows. The project layout uses Building B as a buffer for the rest of the site, 

particularly for the open space areas. The active outdoor areas are located internal to the site and 

direct exposure to the freeway is minimized. 

The project is also subject to potential noise impacts from traffic on I-80 which is discussed in 

Section XI (Noise). It includes noise mitigation measures for maximizing the setback from the 

freeway, higher quality windows for insulation, alternative ventilation for units, and siting of 

outdoor areas where they would be buffered from the freeway. Because the noise impact is 

related to freeway traffic, these measures are also effective at addressing air quality impacts. 

The Cahill analysis also suggests mitigation strategies that could be used to reduce exposure 

levels. It includes measures for reducing the source emissions, actions involving the right-of-way 

and roadway design, barriers between the right-of-way and subject property, and on-site 

measures. The off-site or regulatory measures are not practical for the project. However, 

mitigation at the receptor site is feasible and can improve air quality, particularly for indoor air 

quality so that it is cleaner than the outdoor air. The analysis recommends use of enhanced 

filtration within the dwellings using passive electrostatic filters and low air velocities to remove 

residual freeway aerosols. Overall, the project has already incorporated design elements and 

features or includes mitigation that would help to minimize potential air quality impacts. Because 

polluted outdoor air brought into a building with poor ventilation by an inefficient filter could 

actually raise pollution levels and because people spend a majority of their time indoors, 

additional measures are necessary to address indoor air quality. 

MITIGATION: 

MM#1 Indoor Air Quality. – In order to minimize air quality impacts and improve indoor 

air quality, prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall incorporate the following 



a) Provide an enhanced filtration for all dwelling units using passive electrostatic filters and 

low air velocities or equivalent; 




Attachment 6 

b) Use low VOC materials, paints, carpeting in the dwelling units consistent with Build It 

Green’s Multi-Family Green Building Guidelines. 

Implementation of the above mitigation ensures that potential impacts from exposure to mobile 

source emissions are reduced to a less than significant level. 

Office Parcel 

There are no minimum distance recommendations for the proposed office/research use on the 

parcel adjacent to the Interstate 80. The proposed commercial use primarily consists of indoor 

activity during normal work hours, exposure to outdoor air contaminants is limited. Mitigation 

measures have been identified in Section XI (Noise) for the office development in order to 

reduce noise impacts that would further reduce potential air quality impacts. It includes an 

alternate form of ventilation to ensure that windows can remain closed for a long period of time. 

Therefore, the project is considered to have a less than significant impact on the office parcel. 

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Would the proposal result in impacts to: 

a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or 

their habitats (including but not limited to 

plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? 

b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage 

trees)? 

c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. 

oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 

d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and 

vernal pool)? 

e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 

DISCUSSION: 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

The project site is approximately 4.4 acres in size. It is split by major arterial street, Cowell 

Boulevard, which separates the proposed multi-family parcel on south side from the office parcel 

on the north side. The project area is a flat, undeveloped site in an urbanized area. It consists 

primarily of non-native grasses and weedy forbs with scattered ornamental and horticultural 

trees. It contains no water features or water bodies. The surrounding area consists of several 



No 

Impact 


developed sites with residential or commercial uses and several vacant parcels. The site is 

separated from other nearby vacant parcels by roads that fragment the undeveloped land. 

CONCLUSION: 

Attachment 6 

a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. A Biological Report prepared by LSA 

Associates, Inc. was conducted for the project. The grassland habitat was determined to be low 

quality accompanied by corresponding low diversity of wildlife. The report states that the site is 

“relatively free of biological constraints that will significantly affect its development.” No 

sensitive species were observed or identified on site by the report or follow-up surveys. Although 

no suitable nesting trees for raptors are located on-site, there are potential nesting trees near the 

project area and records of a known Swainson’s hawk nest site within ¼ mile. Additionally, 

burrowing owls were observed in 2003 on the property directly east of the subject site and the 

project site also provides potential nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Furthermore, it provides 

potential foraging habitat for burrowing owls and Swainson’s hawks because of the site’s 

proximity to known nest sites. 

Swainson’s hawk 

Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) which are a threatened species are known to nest within the 

city limits and a known Swainson’s hawk nest site is within ¼ mile of the site. This proximity of 

the project site to a known nest site is well within foraging range for Swainson’s hawks. The 

California Department of Fish and Game has determined that parcels of land five acres or larger 

can provide suitable foraging habitat. The entire project site is 4.4 acres in size and falls below 

the five acre threshold. Furthermore, it is fragmented into two different sites by Cowell 

Boulevard which creates a 1.16-acre on the north side and a 3.35-acre parcel on the south side. 

The southern parcel is contiguous with the 0.9-acre City greenbelt parcel, but would still not 

meet the 5-acre threshold. Therefore, the loss of potential foraging habitat to Swainson’s hawks 

is considered less than significant. 

Burrowing Owl 

The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea) is a Federal Bird of Conservation 

Concern and state Species of Special Concern which is known to exist in the City of Davis and 

the vicinity. It inhabits vacant parcels and fields similar to the project site. Although none have 

been observed on the project site, burrowing owls were observed on an adjacent property in 

2003. The burrowing owl is an opportunistic species that will occupy existing burrows and could 

potentially move onto the site to nest prior to construction. Disturbance and impacts to nesting 

burrowing owls as a result of the project are potentially significant unless mitigation is 

incorporated. 

MITIGATION: 

MM#2 - Burrowing Owl Mitigation Measure - Prior to any grading or construction on site, 

a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted in areas of suitable habitat on 





Attachment 6 





documenting survey methods and findings should be submitted to the City of Davis for 

review and approval, and no further mitigation is required for potential impacts to 




season (September 1 through January 31) or a 250 foot radius buffer around the 

burrow during breeding season (February 1 through August 31) until the breeding season 

ends, or it is confirmed by a qualified biologist that the burrow is no longer occupied. 

c) If destruction of an occupied burrow in the project area is unavoidable, passive relocation 

techniques shall be used during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 

31) to exclude the owls from the burrow in accordance with DFG guidelines (DFG 1995). 

Following relocation, the project site shall be monitored for five consecutive days to 

ensure that owls are no longer present. If site grading does not occur within three days 

after the five consecutive days of monitoring is completed, a biologist shall resurvey the 

site to determine if owls have reoccupied the site. If owls have reoccupied the site, 

passive relocation and monitoring procedures must be repeated. A qualified biologist 

shall be present during initial grading. If owls are present during initial grading, all 

grading must cease and passive relocation and monitoring procedures shall be repeated. 

Following completion of the passive relocation, a letter shall be submitted to the City of 

Davis documenting the methods and results of burrowing owl passive relocation on the 

project site. If there are no occupied nests or if nesting owls have been relocated as 

described above, the site may be maintained per City requirements to prevent occupation 

by any burrowing owls. 




breeding season, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of nesting habitat consistent with 

DFG guidelines. 

Implementation of the above mitigation measure ensures that potential impacts to burrowing 

owls are less than significant. 

b)-e) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area designated for development. 

The site and surrounding area is undeveloped and vegetation is largely composed of grasses and 

several scattered trees. There are no wetlands, or water bodies on the project site. The project 

does not adversely affect any locally designated species, natural communities, wetland habitats, 

or migration corridors. Therefore, the project is considered to have no impact. 




V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 


a) Disturb paleontological resources? 

b) Disturb archaeological resources? 

c) Affect historical resources? 

d) Have the potential to cause a physical change 

which would affect unique ethnic cultural 

values? 

e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses 

within the potential impact area? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a) & b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is vacant and undeveloped and contains 

no structures. There are no records of any historical or archaeological sites on the project site 

that would be impacted. The area is not considered a sensitive cultural site. The South Davis 

Specific Plan EIR identified no archaeological impacts in the area. A standard City requirement 

to stop work in the event any cultural resources are uncovered will be incorporated as a condition 

of approval. The project was reviewed by the State Office of Historic Preservation who 

concurred that no historic properties would be affected. Therefore, the project is considered to 

have a less than significant impact. 

c)-e) No Impact. The project site is vacant and undeveloped and contains no structures. There 

are no records of any historical, cultural, or religious resources on or associated with the project 

site that would be impacted. The area is not considered a sensitive cultural site. The South Davis 

Specific Plan EIR identified no archaeological impacts in the area. Therefore, the project is 

considered to have no impact. 

VI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 


a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 



No 

Impact 

No 

Impact 


VI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

plans? 

b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 

and inefficient manner? 

c) Result in the loss of availability of a known 

mineral resource that would be of future 

value to the region and the residents of the 

State? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a) & c) No Impact. The project does not conflict with any energy conservation plan. There are 

no known mineral resources on site. Therefore, the project is considered to have no impact. 

b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not require substantial amounts of energy 

during construction and is not expected to use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or 

inefficient manner. The project would result in the consumption of additional fuel resources by 

adding traffic to the local street system and use energy through its operations. However the 

project site is served by local and regional bus routes and had direct access to a bicycle path. It 

will provides employees, residents and visitors to the site with alternatives to using nonrenewable 

resources for transportation purposes. The project will be required to meet and/or 

exceed state and local energy conservation requirements. The project is also subject to the City’s 

Green Building Ordinance which requires projects to incorporate a variety of green building 

measures that would help reduce energy use. Therefore, energy impacts are considered less than 

significant. 

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

Would the proposal result in or expose people to 

potential impacts involving: 

a) Fault rupture? 

b) Seismic ground shaking? 

c) Seismic ground failure, including 

liquefaction? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 



No 

Impact 

No 

Impact 


VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

d) Seiche, Tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 

e) Landslides or mudflows? 

f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable 

soil conditions from excavation, grading, or 

fill? 

g) Subsidence of the land? 

h) Expansive soils? 

i) Unique geologic or physical features? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a)-c) & f)-h) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not increase the 

exposure to identified geologic hazards. No known earth quake fault lines are located within the 

City. The San Andreas fault system is to the west and the Eastern Sierra fault system is to the 

east. As identified in the General Plan EIR (pg. 51-2), the City is identified as being in Seismic 

Risk Zone III. This means the maximum intensity of an earthquake that would be experienced in 

the area would be a VII or VII on the modified Mercalli intensity scale. An earthquake of such 

magnitude could result in slight to moderate damage in specially designed or standard structures. 

A Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the project and addressed potential soil or 

geological hazards. The report determined that the site is suitable for the proposed development 

and did not identify any significant hazards. The project is required to provide and comply with 

a site-specific soils report prior to construction and be appropriately designed to meet all 

earthquake standards as required by building codes. Therefore, the project is considered to have 

a less than significant impact. 

d), e) & i) No Impact. The project site is flat. There are no features or known hazards that 

would present a tsuami, seiche, volcano, landslide, or mudflow risk. Therefore, the project is 

considered to have no impact. 

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 



No 

Impact 

No 

Impact 


VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Would the proposal involve: 

a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 

hazardous substances (including, but not 

limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or 

radiation)? 

b) Possible interference with an emergency 

response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 

c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 

health hazards? 

d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 

potential health hazards? 

e) Increased fire hazard in areas with 

flammable brush, grass, or trees? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a)-e) No Impact. The project is a residential apartment project and potential future office site. It 

does not involve the use of any hazardous materials and does not expose people to or create any 

new health hazards. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project and 

did not identify any significant hazards. The site has a history of agricultural use, but no evidence 

of hazards has been identified. No sites within the vicinity of the subject site are considered 

threatening to the environmental integrity of the project. Therefore, the project is considered to 

have no impact to hazards and hazardous materials. 

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 

Would the proposal result in: 

a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 

patterns, or the rate and amount of surface 

runoff? 

b) Exposure of people or property to water 

related hazards such as flooding? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 



No 

Impact 

No 

Impact 


IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 

c) Discharge into surface waters or other 

alteration of surface water quality (e.g. 

temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 

d) Changes in the amount of surface water in 

any water body? 

e) Changes in currents, or the course or 

direction of water movements? 

f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, 

either through direct additions or 

withdrawals, or through interception of an 

aquifer by cuts or excavations or through 

substantial loss of groundwater recharge 

capability? 

g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 

groundwater? 

h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 

i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 

groundwater otherwise available for public 

water supplies? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a), h) & i) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed building and site improvements to the 

vacant parcel result in development of the site and changes to surface runoff patterns and rates. 

The project is required to comply with City requirements for stormwater discharge. The site 

improvements include bioswales for stormwater retention and groundwater recharge to minimize 

runoff issues. The project will connect to City water system that draws from groundwater 

supplies. The project will be required to comply with standard water conservation measures for 

appliances and irrigation and will substantially reduce water supplies. Therefore, the project is 

considered to have a less than significant impact. 

b)-g) No Impact. The proposed project does not result in any new or additional impacts related 

to hydrology or water quality. There are no water bodies on or near the project site that would 

be affected. The site is not within the 100 year flood zone. Therefore, the project is considered 

to have no impact. 



No 

Impact 


X. LAND USE AND PLANNING 


a) Conflict with general plan designation or 

zoning? 

b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 

or policies adopted by agencies with 

jurisdiction over the project? 

c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 

vicinity? 

d) Affect agricultural resources or operations 

(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or 

impacts from incompatible land uses)? 

e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 

of an established community (including a 

low-income or minority community? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a)-c) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is currently designated Business Park under the 

General Plan and is zoned Industrial Research under the PD 12-87 zoning. The current 

designations allow the proposed multi-family use is allowed as a secondary use and with a 

conditional use permit. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use 

to High Density Residential, a Rezone to change the zoning district to Multi-Family, and a 

Specific Plan Amendment to ensure reflect the changes. The project would be consistent with 

the general plan and zoning with approval of the land use changes. 

The project site includes a 0.75-acre land dedication site intended for affordable housing. The 

current zoning allows multifamily uses as a conditional use. The project would also develop the 

adjacent 2.56 acre site as part of the multi-family project. The residential site would be rezoned 

to multi-family. Although the project results in the conversion of commercial land, an Economic 

Feasibility Study that included the subject property determined that commercial development of 

the site was “Highly Infeasible” for most uses. Three uses, automobile dealership, mixed use 

small office with residential, and small office on small parcels, were considered “Somewhat 

Infeasible.” The proposed residential use remains consistent with the overall intent of the general 

plan, environmental plans, and policies for land use, housing, economic development, 

circulation. 

Surrounding properties are dominated by residential development. Nearby commercial 

properties are undeveloped, except for a UCD bookstore warehouse to the east. Proximity to the 



No 

Impact 


Attachment 6 

freeway raises potential land use conflicts, but air quality and noise reports prepared for the 

project analyzed the related issues. They determined that the potential impacts were not 

significant and included project recommendations which have been incorporated. The triangular 

parcel would remain designated for research/office use and the proposed project would not 

adversely affect development of the office site. Therefore, impacts are considered less than 

significant. 

d) & e) No Impact. The project does not affect any agricultural resources or operations. The site 

is adjacent to existing development. The project site and adjacent vacant sites are zoned for 

development. The site is part of an existing community. Development of the site and related 

improvements will help to better link the community together with the bicycle path and road 

improvements. Therefore, the project is considered to have no impact. 

XI. NOISE 


a) Increases in existing noise levels? 

b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 

DISCUSSION: 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

The project proposes a 69-unit residential apartment community. The site is surrounded by other 

residential uses and potential commercial uses. The residential use will not result in any longterm 

or significant noise increase. However, construction-related noise would result in a shortterm 

increase in noise levels. The project is subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal 

Code Chapter 24) that regulates general noise levels with specific provisions for construction 

hours and operations. It limits noise from construction equipment to 86 dBA at the edge of the 

property plane. 

Noise levels in the vicinity of the project that future residents would be exposed to come from a 

variety of sources. Surrounding land uses are residential or commercial in nature and do not 

generate any unusual or significant amount of noise. However, roadway noise and train noise 

can be more substantial. The proposed residential parcel is approximately 100 feet from the 

nearest travel lane of Interstate 80. The office parcel is approximately 55 feet from the nearest 

travel lane. The close proximity to the highway exposes the sites to significant roadway traffic 

noise which dominates any other nearby noise source. An Acoustical Analysis prepared by LSA 

Associates was conducted for the project to evaluate potential noise impacts. The General Plan 

establishes thresholds for acceptable exterior and interior noise exposure for different land uses 

which are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 below. 



No 

Impact 


Table 4. Standards for Interior Noise Levels 

Use Noise Level (dBA) 

Residences 45 

Offices 55 

Attachment 6 

Table 5. Standards for Exterior Noise Exposure 

Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) 

Use 

Normally 

Acceptable 

Conditionally 

Acceptable 

Normally 

Unacceptable 

Clearly 

Unacceptable 

Residential 

Office Buildings, 

Under 60 60-70 70-75 Above 75 

Business Commercial 

and Professional 

Under 65 65-75 Above 75 NA 

CONCLUSION/MITIGATION: 

a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project will produce short-term increases in 

construction-related noise that could impact nearby residences as a result of construction-related 

traffic and activities. An Acoustical Analysis was prepared for the project and analyzed the 

potential noise impacts. The report determined that the potential noise level from constructionrelated 

traffic on access roads leading to the site could be high for a single event. For example a 

truck passing at 50 feet would generate a maximum of 86 dBA Lmax. However, the incremental 

increase in the longer term (hourly or daily) noise levels would be small. Therefore, the 

construction-related traffic noise impact would be less than significant. 

Excavation, grading, and construction activities can also result in a substantial noise increase. 

According to the noise report, construction noise can range as high as 91 dBA Lmax at 50 feet 

during the noisiest phases. Although it would not be a permanent increase in noise levels, it can 

be an intermittent and sustained increase during the construction phase. Existing residential units 

and outdoor activity areas are located within 50 feet of potentially active construction areas and 

could be impacted. Because the noise from construction equipment potentially exceeds the 

City’s standards for acceptable level for construction activities of 86 dBA at the edge of the 

property plane, the potential impact is considered significant unless mitigation is incorporated. 

The closest existing noise sensitive receptor to the office/commercial parcels are residential land 

uses located southeast of the project site on Koso Street. They are approximately 465 feet away 

and would not be significantly impacted by construction noise. However, the proposed 

residential units are approximately 160 feet from potential active construction areas on the 

commercial/office site. If the residential parcel is developed and occupied before construction 

begins on the commercial/office site, construction-related noise would impact sensitive receptors 

and mitigation would be required. 

MM#3 - Construction Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce potential impacts from shortterm 







Attachment 6 



a) The project contractor shall permit only one piece of earthmoving equipment (including 

scrapers, haul trucks, rollers, dozers, tractors, front end loaders, hydraulic backhoes or 

excavators, graders, or similar equipment) to operate at any single time within 100 feet of 

the Owendale Community property line; 

b) During all project site excavation and on-site grading, the project contractors shall equip 

all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained 

mufflers and bafflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards; 

c) The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted 

noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site; and 


greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive 


e) During all project construction, the construction contractor shall limit all noise-producing 

construction related activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, and to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. For the 

office/commercial parcels which are located more than two hundred feet from existing 

homes, the contractor may request a special use permit to begin work at 6 a.m. on 

weekdays from June 15 th until September 1 st . 

Implementation of the above mitigation measure and compliance with the City’s Noise 

Ordinance ensures that potential impacts are less than significant. 

b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site is exposed to significant roadway 

traffic noise because of its proximity to Interstate Highway 80. The major source of traffic noise 

comes from I-80. Noise from other sources including Cowell Boulevard, Drummond Avenue, 

and the railroad line on the north side of the highway are not significant contributors. The noise 

analysis prepared for the project focused on the highway traffic noise impacts. Potential noise 

impacts from other sources are addressed as part of the highway noise impact analysis and 

proposed mitigation measures. 

The Acoustical Analysis prepared for the project measured ambient noise levels on the project 

site. The 24-hour weighted average was 71 dBA CNEL. The levels were generally confirmed 

by traffic noise modeling that was conducted. The modeling also calculated future roadway 

traffic noise levels along I-80 and predicted an increase to 81.9 dBA at 50 feet from the 

centerline of the outermost travel lane by 2025. 

Residential Parcel. 

The traffic noise modeling indicated that the closest outdoor sensitive receptor areas on the 

residential parcel would be exposed to future traffic noise levels from I-80 of up to 73.9 dBA 




Attachment 6 

CNEL. It assumed a minimum setback of 260 feet from the centerline of I-80. This level 

exceeds the City’s threshold of 70 dBA for acceptable exterior noise level. Using standard 

construction, it would also exceed the threshold of 45 dBA for interior noise level for residential 

uses. It results in a significant impact unless mitigated. 

Noise levels can be reduced with berming, landscaping, and structures. Interiors levels can be 

further reduced with the use of higher quality construction materials and insulation. Although 

the project proposes berms in the landscape area along Cowell Boulevard, the noise reduction 

benefits are not fully realized because of the driveway openings. Landscaping with trees along 

Cowell Boulevard is proposed and would provide further noise buffering. 

Based on the EPA’s Protective Noise Levels, standard construction for northern California 

buildings would provide more than 25 dBA in exterior to interior noise reduction with windows 

closed and 15 dBA or more with windows open. A building located between the noise source 

and receptor would provide a minimum of 15 dBA reduction. The project design which orients 

and sites Building B towards the highway is intended to provide noise reduction for the active 

outdoor areas which includes, yards playgrounds, patios, decks, and balconies, to an acceptable 

level of 58.9 dBA (73.9 dBA - 15 dBA = 58.9 dBA). 

Residential units that face I-80 would be exposed to noise levels up to 73.9 dBA CNEL. With 

windows open, noise levels of 58.9 dBA (73.9 dBA - 15 dBA = 58.9 dBA) would exceed the 

residential interior noise standard of 45 dBA. Alternate ventilation would be necessary to allow 

windows to remain closed. Even with windows closed, the interior noise level of 48.9 dBA (73.9 

dBA – 25 dBA = 48.9 dBA) would exceed the residential standard under standard construction. 

Further noise reduction features such as enhanced building materials would therefore be 

necessary. The project would result in a significant noise impact to development on the 

residential parcel unless mitigated. 

MM#4 - Residential Parcel Traffic Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce impacts from 




a) A minimum setback of 260 feet from the centerline of I-80 shall be required of all noise 

sensitive land uses on the residential parcels; 


ventilation, should be required for all residential units directly exposed to I-80 to ensure 

that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time; 

c) Windows with a minimum STC-32 rating shall be required for all residential units with 

façades directly exposed to I-80; and 


located on the south side of buildings on the residential parcels. 




Attachment 6 

Implementation of the above mitigation ensures that noise impacts to the proposed residential 

use are reduced to a less than significant level. 

Commercial Parcel. 

Existing traffic noise levels on the office/commercial parcel range up to 78.7 dBA CNEL which 

exceeds the acceptable threshold of 75 dBA for commercial exterior noise level and 55 dBA for 

commercial interior noise level using standard construction methods. According the Acoustical 

Analysis, a berm at least four feet high above the finished pad elevation of a building would 

reduce exterior noise level from the highway traffic to 69.2 dBA CNEL which is within the 

conditionally acceptable range. Dense landscaping could provide further noise reduction. 

Noise levels on the first floor could be reduced to an acceptable interior noise level of 54.2 dBA 

CNEL (69.2 dBA – 15 dBA = 54.2 dBA) with windows open and with standard construction. 

However, upper floors would not benefit from a berm and would be exposed to traffic noise 

levels up to 77.1 dBA CNEL. In order to meet interior noise standards, windows would need to 

remain closed, requiring alternate ventilation. The project would result in a significant impact to 

development on the office/commercial parcel unless mitigated. 

MM#5 - Office/Commercial Parcel Traffic Noise Mitigation. In order to reduce impacts 




a) A berm a minimum of 4 feet in height above the finished pad elevation and extending the 

length of the property should be constructed on the northern property boundary adjacent 

to I-80; 

b) The berm should be landscaped with dense vegetation and tree cover to aid in blocking 

the line of sight to the traffic noise source; 

c) A minimum setback of 165 feet from the centerline of I-80 should be required of all noise 

sensitive land uses on the office/commercial parcel; 

d) An alternate form of ventilation, such as an air conditioning system, should be required 

for all office/commercial spaces directly exposed to I-80 to ensure that windows can 

remain closed for a prolonged period of time. 

Implementation of the above mitigation ensures that potential noise impacts to the commercial/ 

office parcel are less than significant. 

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 



No 

Impact 


XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 


a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 

local population projections? 

b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 

directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in 

an undeveloped area or extension of major 

infrastructure)? 

c) Displace existing housing, especially 

affordable housing? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a) & c) No Impact. The proposed project is for a 69-unit residential affordable apartment 

community. It does not exceed local population projections. The site is vacant and no existing 

housing is displaced. Therefore, the project is considered to have no impact. 

b) Less Than Significant Impact. The site includes a land dedication site for affordable housing 

and rezoning of an adjacent parcel for multifamily use. It results in additional housing and 

population growth on the site. However, the additional housing is consistent with the City’s 

Housing Element and housing needs and the site is largely surrounded by existing development 

and is designated for development. It does not result in substantial growth and impacts are 

considered less than significant. 

XII. PUBLIC SERVICES 

Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in 

a need for new or altered government services 

in any of the following areas: 

a) Fire protection? 

b) Police protection? 

c) Schools? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 



No 

Impact 

No 

Impact 


XII. PUBLIC SERVICES 

d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 

roads? 

e) Other governmental services? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a)-e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in an urbanized area where services 

are already available and provided. The new multi-family project adds residents to the area. It 

will need basic public services, but it does not require the provision of any new or altered 

services. Applicable local agencies have reviewed the project and no significant issues have been 

raised. Fire, police, schools, and other public facilities are available and adequate to serve the 

project and the project will be required to pay related impact fees. Therefore, the project is 

considered to have a less than significant impact on public services. 

XIV. RECREATION 


a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 

regional parks or other recreational facilities? 

b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a) & b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed multi-family project will add residents to 

the area and create additional use of parks or recreational facilities. The project includes bicycle 

path improvements adjacent to the site that will enhance recreational facilities. Existing parks 

and facilities are adequate to serve the project which will pay required impact fees for 

recreational facilities. The project does not adversely affect any existing recreational 

opportunities. Therefore, the project is considered to have a less than significant impact. 



No 

Impact 

No 

Impact 


XV. TRANSPORTATION AND 

CIRCULATION Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 


a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 

b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. 

sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or 

incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 

c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 

nearby uses? 

d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or offsite? 

e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 

bicyclists? 

f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 

alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, 

bicycle racks)? 

g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 

DISCUSSION: 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

The proposed project would construct a 69-unit affordable apartment community on an 

undeveloped 3.38-acre site. The site fronts on Cowell Boulevard and Drummond Avenue. 

Cowell Boulevard is classified as a 2 plus-lane major arterial. It currently has one vehicle lane 

and one bicycle lane in each direction with space for a left turn lane. Drummond Avenue is 

classified as a 2-lane minor arterial. 

The project proposes two driveways on Cowell Boulevard to provide access to the site. Both 

driveways will have right and left turn access into the project site and onto Cowell Boulevard. 

Off-site improvements include completion of a roundabout at the intersection of Cowell and 

Drummond, striping for a continuous left-turn lane, and bicycle path improvements to the 

adjacent greenbelt. 122 on-site vehicle parking spaces are proposed with five of them in reserve 

to be developed if needed. 140 bicycle parking spaces will be provided. The site is served by 

Yolo County Transit and local Unitrans service with a bus stop on Drummond Avenue in front of 

the site and another bus stop on Cowell Boulevard just west of the site. 



No 

Impact 


CONCLUSION: 

Attachment 6 

a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed project will add vehicle trips 

to the local road system as a result of new apartment project. A Traffic Impact Analysis was 

prepared for the project. The report estimated that the project would generate 491 new daily 

trips. 35 new trips would occur during the a.m. peak hour and 45 new trips would occur during 

the p.m. peak hour. Nearby roadway segments and intersections were evaluated for potential 

impacts. The analysis determined that even with the additional new traffic from the project, all 

intersections will continue to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better and that all 

roadway segments will continue to operate at LOS A under existing plus approved projects plus 

the project specific impacts. Under a future plus project setting, it was projected that all 

intersections would operate at LOS D or better and roadway segments would continue to operate 

at LOS A. 

The General Plan establishes Level of Service standards for city roadways and intersections. It 

sets a LOS E for intersections and segments for arterials and collectors during peak traffic hours 

and a LOS D for arterials, collectors and major intersections during non-peak traffic hours. None 

of the unsignalized intersections would meet peak hour signal warrants and the roadway 

segments would continue to operate above City LOS thresholds under both existing plus project 

as well as future conditions. Therefore, traffic impacts on intersections and roadways are 

considered less than significant. 

The traffic analysis was reviewed by the City of Davis Public Works Department which 

concurred with the general conclusions. However, the report identified potential access and 

safety impacts related to the project that could have potential adverse effects and therefore 

requires mitigation: 

MITIGATION: 

MM#6 - Traffic/Circulation Mitigation. In order to reduce potential traffic safety and 



a) Construct half roadway improvements along project frontage on Cowell Boulevard and 

Drummond Avenue a continuous left turn lane to facilitate access into and out of the 

project site; and 

b) Verify sight distances at the driveway locations. 

Implementation of the above mitigation ensures that impacts are reduced to a less than 

significant level. 

b)-e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not include any unusual traffic or safety 

hazards. Frontage and off-site improvements related to the project will be designed consistent 

with City standards and ensure that potential hazards to vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians are 

minimized. On-site circulation is adequate. The project meets parking requirements for a multi- 




Attachment 6 

family use consistent with zoning standards. Emergency access is provided and local agencies 

have reviewed the project to ensure that access is adequate. Therefore, the project is considered 

to have a less than significant impact. 

f) & g) No Impact. The project is consistent with policies for alternative transportation. The site 

is served by existing bus service and transit stops. Two bicycle parking spaces per unit will be 

provided consistent with City guidelines. No rail, waterborne, or air systems are impacted. 

Therefore, the project is considered to have no impact. 

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 

Would the proposal result in a need for new 

systems or supplies, or substantial alterations 

to the following utilities: 

a) Power or natural gas? 

b) Communications systems? 

c) Local or regional water treatment or 

distribution facilities? 

d) Sewer or septic tanks? 

e) Storm water drainage? 

f) Solid waste disposal? 

g) Local or regional water supplies? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a)-f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed multi-family project is located in an 

urbanized area. Utilities and services are existing or available through local City Services, Davis 

Waste Removal, Pacific Gas and Electric, and other providers. The project will use some of the 

existing service capacity. Services and supplies are adequate to serve the project which does not 

result in the need for any new systems or supplies. Therefore the impact is considered to be less 

than significant. 



No 

Impact 


XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF 

SIGNIFICANCE Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

a) Does the project have the potential to 

degrade the quality of the environment, 

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 

wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife 

population to drop below self-sustaining 

levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 

community, reduce the number or restrict the 

range of a rare or endangered plant or animal 

or eliminate important examples of the major 

periods of California history or prehistory? 

b) Does the project have the potential to 

achieve short-term objectives, to the 

disadvantage of long-term, environmental 

goals? 

c) Does the project have impacts that are 

individually limited, but cumulatively 

considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” 

means that the incremental effects of a 

project are considerable when viewed in 

connection with the effects of past projects, 

the effects of other current projects, and the 

effects of probable future projects) 

d) Does the project have environmental effects 

which will cause substantial adverse effects 

on human beings, either directly or 

indirectly? 


Potentially 

Significant 

Unless 

Mitigation 

Incorporated 

Attachment 6 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area designated for 

development. The site is disturbed and largely consists of non-native grasses with low habitat 

value. The surrounding area is largely developed and the proposed multi-family residential 

project would be consistent with the surrounding area. There are no known sensitive species or 

habitat on-site that would be impacted. However, development of the site could impact habitat 

for burrowing owls. Potential impacts to burrowing owls are addressed in Section IV (Biological 

Resources). Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the 

environment and is considered to have a less than significant impact. 



No 

Impact 


Attachment 6 

b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project involves development of a vacant site and is 

consistent with the proposed Zoning and General Plan. The project will meet all applicable 

requirements. The proposed project does not conflict with or disadvantage long-term 

environmental goals and is therefore considered to have no impact. 

c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in increased vehicle trips 

with potential cumulative impacts on air quality and climate change. Although it would generate 

additional vehicle trips and contribute pollutants which the area is in non-attainment, the project 

does not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase. The District Air Quality Plan 

assumes some increase in growth and a cumulative impact from all development projects. It 

anticipates that all projects will mitigate their incremental emissions contribution as much as 

possible and is addressed in General Plan policies encouraging infill development, proximity to 

services, and alternative transportation modes. The Program EIR for the General Plan Update 

determined that mitigation measures could be implemented to reduce potential air quality 

impacts, but that the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, the District 

considers an impact cumulatively significant if the project requires a change in the existing land 

use designation or if projected emissions are greater than emissions for the site if developed 

under the existing land use designation. The proposed use is consistent with the proposed 

Zoning and General Plan. Air quality impacts are already addressed and the project does not 

result in a cumulatively considerable net increase. 

The project also produces greenhouse gases that contribute global warming impacts. However, 

information and thresholds are not yet available to determine the project’s contribution or 

appropriate mitigation. As proposed, the project includes a number of elements that help to 

reduce overall carbon emissions. It is an infill site within the city with a proposed density of 20 

units per gross acre that makes efficient use of the site. The location is well-served by transit and 

is directly adjacent to a city greenbelt/bicycle path and city streets with bike lanes. Siting of the 

buildings take advantage of southern exposures and roofs will allow for photovoltaics to be 

installed if desired. The project will comply with city requirements for energy conservation and 

efficiency. Therefore, the project is considered to have less than significant cumulative impacts. 

d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a multi-family residential 

development. It is consistent with surrounding residential sites and potential office/commercial 

sites. Proximity to the freeway creates potential air quality and noise impacts. However, 

potential impacts have been analyzed and addressed above and determined to be less than 

significant. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on human beings. 




REFERENCES AND SOURCES 

Attachment 6 

1. Cahill, Thomas and Elizabeth Gearhart. March 2, 1995. PM-10 Aerosols in Davis from 

Traffic Sources. Air Quality Group. University of California, Davis, CA. 

2. Cahill, Thomas A. August 6, 2008. Davis New Harmony Project Draft Informal Analysis. 

3. California Air Resources Board. April 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A 

Community Health Perspective. 

4. City of Davis. February 15, 1989. South Davis Specific Plan as Amended. 

5. City of Davis. Adopted July 15, 1989. South Davis Specific Plan EIR. 

6. City of Davis. May 2001. General Plan. 

7. City of Davis. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. 

8. City of Davis. March 2006. Zoning Ordinance. 

9. Economics Research Associates. September 8, 2004. Commercial Feasibility Study of 

Selected Properties in Davis. 

10. KD Anderson & Associates, Inc. January 18, 2008. Traffic Impact Analysis. 

11. LSA Associates, Inc. September 21, 2007. Preliminary Biological Resources Evaluation 

prepared by Lucie Adams. 

12. LSA Associates, Inc. December 2007. Acoustical Analysis. 

13. LSA Associates, Inc. December 11, 2007. Noise Impact Memo regarding YMHA and SMHA 

Project prepared by Phil Ault. 

14. LSA Associates, Inc. June 16, 2008, January 3, 2008, December 21, 2007, December 12, 

2007. Burrowing Owl Survey - Field Memos prepared by Laura Belt. 

15. LSA Associates, Inc. June 2008. Air Quality Analysis. 

16. Raney Geotechnical, Inc. March 31, 2008. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 

17. Raney Geotechnical, Inc. March 24, 2008. Geotechnical Investigation. 

18. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. June 2008. Draft Recommended 

Protocol for Evaluating the Location of Sensitive Land Uses Adjacent to Major Roadways. 




Attachment 6 

19. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. July 11, 2007. Handbook for Assessing and 

Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. 

ATTACHMENTS 

1. Vicinity Map. 

2. Project Plans. 

















10/07/2008 City Council Meeting 06 - 106




ATTACHMENT 9 

Option 1: Housing Sites to Meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 

With Approval of New Harmony and Existing Project Assumptions 

Site MultiSingle- Total Affordable Units 

familyfamily 1 or Units 

with a Density of 20+ du/ac 

Very Low Mod Above 

Low 

Mod 

Certificate of occupancies issued since 

January 1, 2006 on non-duplicative 

63 127 190 33 15 18 124 

units 2 

Building permits issued from January 

2006 through June 2007 2 

68 49 117 32 20 21 44 

Verona- Fifth and Alhambra 83 83 21 62 

University Retirement Community 

addition 

17 17 17 

435 G Street 

(density of 30 units/acre) 

8 8 8 

Vacant Single-family lots as of 

73 73 6 67 

7/01/07 2 

Parque Santiago, remaining permits 

325, 326, 331, 332, 337, 338, and 343 

Serrano Terrace 

7 7 4 3 

Willowbank 10, 

APN 069-100-026 

31 31 8 23 

233 and 239 J Street 4 4 4 

2990 Fifth Street 29 29 20 9 

4100 Hackberry Street 13 13 

13 

404 E. Eighth Street 


4 4 4 

Willowcreek Commons, 


21 21 4 17 

Cal Aggie House, 

433 Russell Boulevard 

11 11 1 2 8 

726 B Street 1 5 6 1 5 

Ministerial Second Units 3 

18 18 18 

Downtown In-fill 3 

25 27 52 

25 27 

Oakshade- New Harmony, 

APNs 069-020-084 and 069-020-085 

69 69 65 4 

1207 and 1233 Olive Drive 49 49 10 39 

Total Units 280 522 802 131 75 173 423 

Regional Housing Needs Allocation 

(RHNA) Requirements 

498 31 119 163 185 

Provision of Units for RHNA All 

categories are met with the carryover from lower income 

units up each category. (e.g. very low to low, low to mod) 

1 Affordable housing is defined as units with deed restrictions recorded to them, requiring affordability in perpetuity. Rental units have 

affordable housing covenants and ownership units have equity restrictions that cap appreciation to 3.75% each year. 

2 Specific addresses that this category is comprised of are provided in Tables 38, 39, and 40. 

3 Estimate for this category is based on market conditions, historical trends, and financial feasibility, specifics in Section 4.1. 


ATTACHMENT 9 

Option 2: Housing Sites to Meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 

Without Approval of New Harmony and by Changing Project 

Assumptions 

Site 

MultiSingle- Total Affordable Units 

family 

a t + 

1 or Units 

family with Densi y of 20 du/ac 

Very Low Mod Above 

Low 

Mod 

Certificate of occupancies issued since 

January 1, 2006 on non-duplicative 

units 

63 127 190 33 15 18 124 

1 

Building permits issued from January 

2006 through June 2007 

68 49 117 32 20 21 44 

2 

Verona- Fifth and Alhambra 83 83 21 62 

University Retirement Community 

addition 

17 17 17 

435 G Street 


8 8 8 

Vacant Single-family lots as of 7/01/07 2 

73 73 6 67 

Parque Santiago, remaining permits 

325, 326, 331, 332, 337, 338, and 343 

Serrano Terrace 

7 7 4 3 

Willowbank 10, 


31 31 8 23 

233 and 239 J Street 4 4 4 

2990 Fifth Street 29 29 29 

4100 Hackberry Street 13 13 

13 

404 E. Eighth Street 


4 4 4 

Willowcreek Commons, 


21 21 4 17 

Cal Aggie House, 

433 Russell Boulevard 

11 11 1 2 8 

726 B Street 1 5 6 1 5 

Ministerial Second Units 3 

18 18 18 

Downtown In-fill 3 

25 27 52 25 27 

Grande Project 41 41 8 33 

1207 and 1233 Olive Drive 49 49 10 39 

Total Units 211 563 774 66 84 168 456 

Regional Housing Needs Allocation 

(RHNA) Requirements 

498 31 119 163 185 

Provision of Units for RHNA All categories are met with the carryover from lower income 

units up each category. (e.g. very low to low, low to mod) 

1 

Affordable housing is defined as units with deed restrictions recorded to them, requiring affordability in perpetuity. Rental units have 

affordable housing covenants and ownership units have equity restrictions that cap appreciation 

to 3.75% each year. 

2 

Specific addresses that this category is comprised of are provided in Tables 38, 39, and 40. 

3 

Estimate for this category is based on market conditions, historical trends, and financial feasibility, specifics in Section 4.1. 


ATTACHMENT 9 


ATTACHMENT 10 

Ram N. Sah, Ph. D. Sept 29, 2008 

1721 Sapphire Ct. 


Tel: 530-758-0405/530-409-5167 

The City Council 

City of Davis 


The City Council: 

I have received the Notice of Public Hearing for New Harmony Affordable Apartment 

Community (File #61-07). I have the following comments: 

If the city demonstrates the need for rezoning commercial or industrial land in certain 

area of the city it must give the equal opportunity to rezone to all landowners in that area. 

However, rezoning of commercial or industrial land to residential land on piece meal 

basis is unfair and results in influence peddling and possibly of bribery. 

If the applicant is arguing the need for rezoning on the assertion that the commercial 

development is not viable for these three parcels then this justification is not correct. We 

have trouble finding land in the City of Davis for commercial developments. If the 

landowner/developer is unable to develop the land for the commercial developments, we 

will consider purchasing all three parcels of the land at the fair market value and bring 

commercial developments. 

Sincerely, 

Ram N. Sah 


From: Billie Dunbar [mailto:bdunbar906@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:49 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community 

To the Planningn Commision and City Council Members: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

I am opposed to the proposed New Harmony apartment complex for South Davis. 

I have lived at 906 Los Robles since 1975. I have seen the number of low cost housing 

units increase in my surrounding area increase at an alarming rate. Just when one is 

completed and I think "that has got to be the last one" for South Davis, another one is on 

the slate for approval. My concern is that South Davis has become the area that has a 

high density of fast food establishments; appartments; and low cost housing. I do not see 

the same thought and consideration given to this area that is accorded North and West 

Davis neighbohoods. 

Don't we have enough low-cost housing? People already living in Davis do not qualify 

for 

these complexes. I do know that these units are advertised in other areas to attract 

reidents who qualify for low income apartments to move to Davis. They use our 

infrastructure and enroll their children in our public schools and do not 

pay taxes. They use our sewers, streets, and other public facilities that home owners 

pay for. 

I urge you to more thoughtfully plan for the future of this proposed site and use this area 

for small businesses or a park rather than housing that will bring additional low-icome 

families to our neighborhood. 

Billie Dunbar. 906 Los Robles 


From: Kathy Olson [mailto:koindavis@att.net] 

Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 3:33 PM 

To: Eric Lee 


September 28, 2008 

Community Development Department 

c/o Eric Lee, Assistant Planner 

Dear Mr. Lee, 


ATTACHMENT 10 

I am writing in regard to the proposed development of low-income apartments at the 

southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond Avenue. I am opposed to this 

project for the following reasons. 

Several low-income properties have been developed in the area in the past 5 years. I 

believe it is important to have such properties distributed across the entire community of 

Davis in order to achieve the desired goal of mixing low and middle income families in 

neighborhoods and schools. I have not heard of any other locations in Davis that are 

being proposed for low-income projects. 

In my opinion, the appropriate use for space so close to the freeway is that for which it 

was originally zoned, light business. 

Finally, I believe the density of the project is unacceptable. Sixty-nine units invites 

trouble and could negatively impact the value of my property. 

Note that I did not object to the prior low-income developments in this neighborhood. 

They seemed reasonable. The New Harmony project development is not acceptable. 

Sincerely, 

Kathleen Olson, Owner 

3010 Boulder Place 



Original Message 

From: Roger Bockrath [mailto:rogerbockrath@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 9:57 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: Public Comment on New Harmony Project 

ATTACHMENT 10 

Mr. Lee, 

I will be unable to attend the city council meeting regarding the New 

Harmony Project. Please pass along to the council my ADAMANT OPPOSITION to 

any more affordable housing in the neighborhood where it is proposed for 

building. Two reasons. It is inhumane to expect humans to live that close 

to a major highway. The air quality is unacceptable most of the time. 

Because people can't seem to make a living wage is no reason to 

dramatically increase their chances of contracting cancer. Also nobody 

should be exposed to constant noise at the decibel level for extended 

periods of time. And finally, on a more personal note, I am opposed to 

concentrating too many low income houses in my neighborhood because it 

reduces my property value by reducing the livability of my neighborhood. 

Since the one was built on Drummond and Albany, I have noticed a 

considerable increase in traffic, late night noise ,litter, abandoned 

vehicles, theft, etc, etc, Any more concentration of low income housing 

in this neighborhood, I believe, will seriously degrade the quality of 

life for existing owners/tenants Thank you Roger Bockrath 


From: Rachel Iskow [mailto:rachel@mutualhousing.com] 


To: Ruth Asmundson 

Mayor Asmundson: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

As you are aware, at its October 7 meeting, you and the City Council will be asked to take action 

on a housing development proposed in South Davis known as New Harmony. The development 

will incorporate many green features (meeting Build it Green and LEED standards) and provide 

69 apartments that are affordable to very low and extremely-low income households. New 

Harmony will also provide for a variety of amenities for the residents and surrounding 

neighborhood residents. 

You and the City Council members have already provided City support for the development in the 

form of a $900,000 loan which was used to purchase the land, and other funding to help pay 

predevelopment expenses such as architectural and engineering designs and studies. You also 

made a commitment of $5,950,000 to the development of New Harmony. 

As the new Executive Director of Yolo Mutual Housing Association, I helped make the 

presentation for New Harmony at the September 10th Planning Commission meeting. Given the 

City Council’s and the city staff’s past and continuing support for the development, I was shocked 

and disheartened by the 4-2 vote by the Commission to deny our planning application that 

evening. 

I am attaching here our appeal of that action. The Planning Commission members made only 

positive comments about the design of the development and of the qualifications of Yolo and 

Sacramento mutual housing associations as sponsors and developers. They based their denial 

solely on a Lancet journal article which Commissioner Cordana brought to the meeting. The 

article linked asthma in children to proximity of their homes to freeways in Southern California. 

This study was a summary of research conducted in communities not directly comparable to the 

City of Davis, nor to actual conditions at the project site. Conversely, our mutual housing 

associations, as applicants, provided a third party expert site-specific health risk assessment, 

developed using California Air Quality Board standards, which determined that the project posed 

no significant health risks to future residents, in large part due to the direction of delta winds and 

highway traffic counts specific to the site location. A second third-party expert, this one retained 

by City staff, reviewed our expert’s assessment, and agreed with his findings. The Yolo/Solano 

Air Quality District staff also reviewed the assessment study methodology and agreed that the 

study was appropriate and properly conducted. 

We provided substantial evidence specific to the New Harmony site that there are no significant 

health impacts to residents. Without discussing the presented evidence, the Commission 

focused on the Lancet article which had no relationship to our specific site. I also want to 

emphasize that the Lancet article did not produce any findings that dispute the validity of the 

widely accepted Health Risk Assessment (HRA) methodology. 

If you have any questions or concerns, or desire more information on New Harmony, I would like 

to take the opportunity to discuss the project with you prior to October 7. The timing of city 

council action is critical to this development. Because of the denial by Planning Commission, the 

date of consideration of the project was moved to the October 7 meeting of the City Council. This 

is a big concern for us because our funding application to the State Department of Housing and 

Community Development is due on October 8. If we do not receive the Council’s approval of the 

project on Oct. 7 th , we will not be competitive for the State funding, and there will be no more 

funding opportunities for projects like New Harmony from state bond funds after Oct. 8. If City 

Council does not approve New Harmony on October 7 and instead defers action for a later date, 


ATTACHMENT 10 

we will be left with a $4.9 million gap in soft subsidy (deferred payment) financing that cannot be 

filled by other sources. 

We appreciate your understanding of the need for high quality housing that is affordable to lowwage 

workers and other residents of Davis, as well as your support for the New Harmony plan. I 

look forward to discussing it with you on October 7 th or earlier. 

Many thanks, 

Rachel Iskow, Executive Director 

Yolo Mutual Housing Association 

Sacramento Mutual Housing Association 

rachel@mutualhousing.com 

1520 E. Covell B5 

Davis CA 95616 

1-888-453-8404 

Please visit our home on the web: 

http://www.yolomutualhousing.com 




To: Don Saylor 

Council member Saylor: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

As you are aware, at your October 7 meeting, the City Council will be asked to take action on a 

housing development proposed in South Davis known as New Harmony. The development will 

incorporate many green features (meeting Build it Green and LEED standards) and provide 69 

apartments that are affordable to very low and extremely-low income households. New Harmony 

will also provide for a variety of amenities for the residents and surrounding neighborhood 

residents. 

As a member of the City Council, you have already provided City support for the development in 

the form of a $900,000 loan which was used to purchase the land, and other funding to help pay 

predevelopment expenses such as architectural and engineering designs and studies. You have 

also made a commitment of $5,950,000 to the development of New Harmony. 





evening. 
















health impacts to residents. Without discussing the presented evidence , the Commission 














ATTACHMENT 10 






Many thanks, 







Phone: 888-453-8404 

Cell: 916-595-4252 





To: Sue Greenwald 

Council member Greenwald: 

ATTACHMENT 10 






residents. 









evening. 






























ATTACHMENT 10 






Many thanks, 







Phone: 888-453-8404 

Cell: 916-595-4252 





To: Stephen Souza 

Council member Souza: 

ATTACHMENT 10 






residents. 









evening. 
































ATTACHMENT 10 




Many thanks, 







Phone: 888-453-8404 

Cell: 916-595-4252 





To: Lamar Heystek 

Council member Heystek: 

ATTACHMENT 10 






residents. 









evening. 
































ATTACHMENT 10 




Many thanks, 







Phone: 888-453-8404 

Cell: 916-595-4252 



From: merci periard [mailto:mercip@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:47 AM 

To: Michael Webb 

Subject: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

Great job, we need more affordable housing in Davis, its a wonderful place 

to live but very hard to afford it. 

Good Luck Merci 


From: Anna Otto [mailto:ottocuttingsherloc@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:27 PM 


Subject: proposed housing 

To Whom It May Concern: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

As property owners on Albany Ave. in South Davis, we are concerned about the new 

proposed low-income housing. One of the things that we find attractive about Davis is 

the fact that affordable housing is spread throughout our city. Recently, though, we have 

noted that the concentration of affordable units appears to be heavier in South Davis, 

particularly in the MME district, than in other areas of town. This is of particular concern 

as parents of MME who have seen a noticeable shift in the population in our 

neighborhood school. MME is now the school in the district with the highest proportion 

of Title 1 and EL students. This demographic has created a strain on school resources 

and has threatened the overall quality of our school. 

Thank you, 

Anna Otto & John Buck Cutting 

2813 Albany Ave., Davis 95618 



From: Margaret M Harper [mailto:meg_harper@sbcglobal.net] 



Subject: new harmony 

ATTACHMENT 10 

Mike, 

Per the article about New Harmony: 

It stated that: :The project and the site improvements represent a 

significant investment to the property that COULD provide benefits to the 

neighborhood..." 

Please explain to m 

e one benefit to the neighborhood a neighborhood that has already had an 

increase of crime because of a much smaller scale low income housing 

development. I do not believe there is one neighbor in favor of this 

development and the fact that the city can not see how putting this large 

of a development in an area that already has other low income options and 

is very dense in apartment structures is beyond me!!! 

Also stated in the article: 

"It would represent a missed opportunitiy for a good infill project and 

much needed affordable housing" 

It seems that the city is more concerned with this than with the quality 

of neighborhoods and proper planning of balance amoung our neighborhoods. 

I can only hope that there will be an out pouring tonight and the city 

will listen to the concerns of thoase who live in the surrounding area. 

This is not about "not in my back yard..." Owendale was built on a parcel 

that was slotted for this purpose while this entails an already 

established plan for this parcel and making a change. This is about what 

is reasonable and sustaning some quality to the neiborhood, not what is an 

easy way for the city to feel good about uping it's numbers of low income 

units. 

Meg Harper 


--Sent on behalf of Rachel Iskow-- 

Dr. Gieschen: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

I am the Executive Director of Yolo Mutual Housing Association and Sacramento Mutual 

Housing Association, the nonprofit developers of the proposed New Harmony 

development on Cowell in South Davis. I am in receipt of the email you sent to city 

staff. I wanted to respond as best I can to your concerns, knowing that I can't respond to 

the overall sentiment that South Davis has not received the resources and mix of uses as 

have other areas of Davis. On that issue, I would like to engage in discussion with you 

and others and perhaps in the future our organizations can work together with 

neighborhood residents to make some positive impact in the situation. 

Before I start responding to your specific concerns, I wanted to explain that YMHA 

recently affiliated with SMHA, and we have parallel goals. SMHA is a larger 

organization that has a fully staffed community organizing and resident services staff, as 

well as an asset management staff that monitors property management and property 

issues. Both of these divisions work with neighborhood residents to address concerns. In 

Sacramento, SMHA has worked exclusively developing on infill sites in existing built-up 

neighborhoods. We have brought resources and amenities both to residents of our 

housing and residents of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to computer learning 

labs, community gardens, neighborhood watch, and educational forums, SMHA identifies 

residents with leadership potential who, with some support and training, can work 

effectively with others to address broad community concerns. In one case, SMHA 

leaders, in coalition with neighborhood residents, community organizations and 

educators, were able to obtain substantial amount of funding to increase the number of, 

and expand existing youth programs, and support a peer mediation program at a local 

school. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the neighbors in this manner. I 

understand that YMHA has been operating at low staff for several years, and I believe 

you will see many more resources and oversight with SMHA's involvement. 

As far as this specific development, I offer the following information. 

1) You and other neighbors have been concerns about crime and there is a perception 

that the crime is caused by people living in developments which house families at 

affordable rents. 

I investigated this several months ago and verified that there had been crime and some 

stemmed from Owendale residents. There were a few cases of domestic violence that 

have ended. Now that SMHA is monitoring the property, we have instituted our existing 

policy which is sensitive to the feelings and needs of the victims of domestic violence, 

but is also a firm policy with the goal of protecting the safety of all residents and the quiet 

enjoyment of residents of the property. I also understand that there had been some crime 

in the neighborhood and that some may have been caused by Owendale residents or their 

visitors. I was distressed to get verification of those incidents. There has been a new 

property management company providing the day to day management of that property 


ATTACHMENT 10 

and other YMHA properties, and since that time, there have been evictions and no 

incidences of crime. SMHA carefully screens our applicants, performs criminal 

background checks, and is aggressive in having our property management company 

enforce rules. 

We are committed to starting neighborhood watch meetings now that we are providing 

oversight to the properties, and would welcome the leadership and participation of 

surrounding neighbors. We will contact you as we begin to set that up within the next 

few weeks. 

The residents of YMHA also desire a peaceful environment. The majority of the 

residents of Owendale Community were prior residents of Davis, and others moved to 

Owendale in order to live closer to their place of employment. Thus, I wish to reassure 

you that these residents are not 'outsiders' and have a strong stake in the success of the 

Davis community and want to be long term residents of the City. 

2) You had concerns about the impact of the project on the school district and 

Montgomery Elementary in particular. · . 

City staff has discussed the project with staff at the Davis Joint Unified School District. 

DJUSD was enthusiastic, as federal school funds are based on number of students, thus 

New Harmony will produce new funds for the school system, which is based on the 

number of students in attendance. In addition, the project will pay $182,855 in school 

impact fees as a condition of obtaining a building permit. We will do whatever we can to 

support the school and the teachers, including helping to apply for grants and run 

supportive afterschool programs. We have found in our developments that with the 

stability provided by consistently affordable rents, and a supportive community with 

youth leadership programs, children develop stronger life skills which benefit families 

and communities. 

3) You had concerns about the lack of a mix of uses in South Davis. 

We were able to purchase this property at a reasonable cost because there was no market 

for the property. As the staff has stated, the lot is not desirable to commercial 

developers. We welcome working with neighbors to attract other resources. For 

example, we could have a lending library, community oriented computer classes, and 

after school programs. As planned, New Harmony provides a number of neighborhoodserving 

uses that would be an asset to the community. New Harmony will facilitate the 

extension of the city greenbelt and bike path, which will provide recreational space and 

increased access to the city's bike trail system. New Harmony includes a 3,800 sq. foot 

community center, which will be available for use by the public. In other SMHA 

properties, community centers have been the location of dance classes, neighborhood 

watch meetings, and community events. In Sacramento, we run urban farm stands in 

neighborhoods where we have housing...those neighborhoods lacking in access to fresh, 

affordable fruits and vegetables. While we can't solve the problem you address related to 


ATTACHMENT 10 

a mix of uses, we would like to work with you and other residents to identify priority 

needs and the resources and allies which will help address those needs, 

The triangular parcel to the north of the site will remain under the current zoning. This 

parcel would be available for future development. 

I hope that this opens some dialogue between us and addresses some of your concerns. I 

am available to speak with you and can be reached by cell at 916-595-4252. 

Sincerely, 


YMHA / SMHA 



From: Connie Steele [mailto:connie.steele@sbcglobal.net] 



Subject: South Davis Development 

ATTACHMENT 10 

I only learned today of the affordable housing plan under consideration for the corner of 

Drummond and Cowell. Unfortunately, I cannot make the planning meeting tonight, but I do 

want to voice my opinion. 

I strongly feel that South Davis and, in particular, the Marguerite Montgomery Elementary 

area, has more than it's share of affordable housing projects. There is a large affordable 

housing project, which is associated with frequent minor criminal activity, very close to the 

area you are considering, plus many apartment units nearby. Our Elementary School now has 

by far the highest percentage of economically disadvantaged children (based on numbers 

enrolled in free meals program) as well as the highest percentage of english learners. When 

my children first started at MME 5 years ago, the diversity was a positive thing. Now, I see 

teachers struggling with classes with a third of the students who are english learners and a 

third who are economically disadvantaged (some, but not complete overlap). I also see MME 

families leaving our school (six I know of personally) because they feel the quality of 

education is dropping, despite the efforts of an excellent principal and many excellent 

teachers. I ask you to look carefully at the relative share of lower income housing in the MME 

sub-district, and to consider what this development will do to a school that is already 

struggling. 

Finally, I am concerned about crime in South Davis. Anecdotally, many residents complain of 

more and more frequent minor crimes such as graffiti, partying on the greenbelt, things stolen 

from cars, etc. Perhaps this is happening all over town, but I suspect we have an increasing 

share. 

I am strongly opposed to the development of low-income housing on this land. We are already 

"blessed" with a large number of apartment complexes, fast food row, one of the least 

attractive shopping areas in town and the greenbelt petty crime mecca. 

By the way, NIMBY is not my usual philosophy. This is, in fact, the first NIMBY complaint I 

have ever written! 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Connie Steele 

Resident of 1737 El Pescador Court 


From: Liz [mailto:lshorts@sbcglobal.net] 



Subject: affordable housing unit on cowell and drummond 

Mr Webb- 

ATTACHMENT 10 

I am unable to attend the planning commission meeting scheduled for tonight because of a 

conflict with back to school night, but I would like to voice my concerns about the proposed 

housing project on Drummond and cowell. 

My name is Liz Shorts and I live on Koso street. Two of my children attend Montgomery 

elementary, with a third to start next year. I also have a child at the DHS and one at Harper junior 

high. I am concerned about the impact a high density affordable housing complex would have on 

my neighborhood and my children’s school. We currently have 3 high density affordable units in 

our school boundaries, plus an additional 2 mobile home parks. I think that is an uneven 

distribution of affordable housing, in comparison with other school boundaries. 

My street has affordable housing units on each end, and has become a pass through for kids with 

little or no supervision, resulting in a bike theft from my front porch, and numerous incidents of 

police activity. I am concerned about the value of my home, virtually surrounded by high density 

housing that was not in the city plans at the time of purchase. 

I would encourage the city to look elsewhere to build a high density project, in an area that has 

not already been impacted by high density affordable housing. 

I should note that I and my husband were both born and raised in davis, as was my husbands 

mother. My children are third generation davisites. I appreciate how hard the city planners have 

worked to spread out the affordable apartments in davis, so that all neighborhoods have some, 

but I feel that if the city is to approve this complex, our south davis neighborhood will have more 

than our fair share. 

Thank you for your time. 

Liz Shorts 

3446 Koso street 


ATTACHMENT 10 

From: Kern Sutton [mailto:Kern.Sutton@microsoft.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:53 AM 

To: Webmaster 

Cc: Lamar Heystek 

Subject: Attention City of Davis Planning Commission- note of opposition to New Harmony 

proposed S. Davis Affordable Apartment Community (60 units) 

Members of the City of Davis Planning Commission 

I am a Davis resident living in proximity to the proposed New Harmony development site in 

South Davis. *I strongly oppose any re zoning of the site proposed for this development.* Our 

neighborhood on Mono Place is very close by foot to the proposed development site and our 

entire street is already negatively affected by low income housing related crime. 

Car tires have been slashed, walk in theft from garages has occurred, loitering truant teens have 

been repeatedly stopped by Davis P.D. patrol cars, intentionally broken bottles, vandalism of 

private and City property and house burglary has all happened during just the past year. I 

recently started a Neighborhood Watch group on Mono Place in response to repeated incidents 

such as these; crimes that were described to us by Davis P.D. officers as foot traffic related 

crimes. 

As has been noted by others in opposition to this proposed re zoning, there are already several 

affordable housing developments *in place today* in our immediate South Davis area. 

Additionally, *existing* City of Davis requirements are already in place that require affordable 

housing percentages to be included in any new development. One such upcoming development 

is already zoned for the plot of land on the southeast corner of the Drummond/Chiles Cowell 

intersection, situated between the end of Mono Place and Drummond. That is immediately 

across Drummond from the proposed New Harmony site. 

I see no need to add still more potential issues and dangers to our neighborhoods by re zoning 

the proposed New Harmony site for a pure affordable housing development. Please deny this 

proposed re zoning. 

Thank you, 

Kern Sutton 



Commissioners 

City of Davis Planning Commission 

(Via e-mail) 

LUCAS H. FRERICHS 

732 B Street 

Davis, California 95616 

(530)758-0807 

RE: Davis Planning Commission 9/10/08 Agenda Item # 6B: 


Dear Commissioners: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

I respectfully request your support of the City of Davis staff recommendations with 

respect to the proposed New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community, which will be 

considered by the Planning Commission this evening. 

As proposed by Sacramento/Yolo Mutual Housing Association (S/YMHA), the 69 unit 

New Harmony project will be a much needed addition to the already short supply of 

affordable housing currently existing in Davis. 

I am the Chair of the Social Services Commission, which has unanimously supported the 

concept of, and funding for, this project. 

The Social Services Commission noted all of the following (as found in the city staff 

report): 

Strong support for a project that responds to a local need for affordable family 

housing, evidenced by local waiting lists, through the condition of two-and threebedroom 

units. 

Recognition that the City of Davis will be able to provide extremely low income 

units to families, as this is the first project to offer affordable housing to citizens 

in this income category. 

Excitement that the New Harmony affordable housing project will be the first 

project developed as fully accessible (in accordance with City Council direction). 

Additionally, this project makes sense from a land use perspective. 

The lot proposed for New Harmony, is awkwardly shaped, and does not lend itself to the 

construction of commercial space, such as neighborhood retail. Also, while close to 

Interstate 80, the lots distance from either the Mace Blvd. or Richards Blvd. freeway exits 

makes it pretty prohibitive from a commercial (retail) or light industrial perspective. 


Really, New Harmony makes good use of an otherwise marginally usable site. 

The project’s proximity to the Owendale affordable housing community, will allow for 

the residents of New Harmony to share facilities, and vice versa, with one another. 

This project also makes sense from a transportation planning perspective. 

The site is already well served by transit, as it located on at least two Unitrans bus lines, 

as well as a Yolobus bus line. Lack of access to public transportation options and 

infrastructure has historically been an issue surrounding the development of affordable 

housing, in Davis, and elsewhere. 

As part of the development agreement, the developer has also agreed to finish a paved 

bike path/greenbelt connection that the City of Davis has not had the funds to complete. 

ATTACHMENT 10 

Approving the site for the New Harmony project will encouraging in helping to remove 

more vehicles from already busy roadways, increasing mass transit usage, bicycle usage, 

thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and contributing to a more bicycle and 

pedestrian –friendly community. 

As a long-time advocate for both affordable and accessible housing, I particularly want to 

commend Sacramento Mutual Housing Association and Yolo Mutual Housing 

Association (the developers) for a design that achieves true accessibility of all units. 

Through utilization of a stacked apartment design, the project will serve as a model for 

other multi-family housing projects, both affordable and market housing, demonstrating 

the feasibility of achieving full accessibility and meeting an ever-expanding housing 

need. 

I believe the concerns of local residents, particularly to the extent they are based on the 

fact that this is an affordable housing project, should not outweigh compelling reasons for 

the project to proceed. The proposed New Harmony project meets a significant local 

need for both affordable and accessible housing. 

I respectfully request your support for this innovative and most needed affordable 

housing project. 

Sincerely, 

Lucas H. Frerichs 


ATTACHMENT 10 


From: sheilathornton@comcast.net [mailto:sheilathornton@comcast.net] 



Subject: new harmony 

Dear Mr. Webb, Community Development Principal Planner, 

We have lived in South Davis since 1992. We are writing to voice our 

strong opposition to yet another low income housing development in South 

Davis. The proposed area was to be the next over crossing over highway 

80. At some point in Davis' future we may need another over crossing and 

we propose that we leave that as open area to be used as planned in the 

future. 

When the low income apartments were built on Albany, we lived on Braddock 

Court, off Albany. Suddenly our cars were broken into and vandalized 

several times. This happened to our neighbors as well. We are sure the 

Davis Police Department would be happy to provide you with statistics on 

this. 

We still live in South Davis and our children attend Montgomery 

Elementary. Children from the low income apartments on Albany, as well as 

several other low income areas such as the trailer park, the apartments 

off of Valdora and the migrant farm workers go to Montgomery Elementary, 

which, as you know, just absorbed many children from Valley Oak. Our 

population of english as a second language students is enoumous and 

Montgomery is struggling to deal with this. Please do not add more stress 

to this situation. DIstribute these children evenly throughout our 

community instead of making Montgomery the only melting pot. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. and Mrs. Michael and Sheila Thornton 



Commissioners 

City of Davis Planning Commission 

Via e-mail 

ERIC R. GELBER 

2003 Renoir Avenue 

Davis, California 95618 

(530) 758-8812 

RE: New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community 

Dear Commissioners: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

I write in support of the staff recommendations with respect to the New Harmony 

Affordable Apartment Community, which will be considered by the Planning 

Commission this evening. 

I am a member of the Social Services Commission, which has unanimously supported 

both the concept of and funding for this project. As noted in the staff report, the Social 

Services Commission noted the following: 

Support for a project that responds to a local need for family affordable housing, 

evidenced by local waiting lists, through the provision of two- and three-bedroom 

units. 

Excitement that the City will be able to provide extremely low income units to 

families. 

Recognition of the project, as the first to be developed as fully accessible (in 

accordance with City direction). 

As a long-time advocate for affordable and accessible housing, I want to particularly note and 

commend the developer for a design that achieves accessibility of all units. By utilizing a 

stacked, rather than multi-story design, the project will serve as a model for other multifamily 

housing projects—affordable and market housing, locally and beyond—demonstrating 

the feasibility of achieving full accessibility and meeting a major and ever-expanding housing 

need. 


ATTACHMENT 10 

I believe the concerns of local residents—particularly to the extent they are based on the fact that this is 

an affordable housing project—should not outweigh compelling reasons for the project to proceed. New 

Harmony meets a significant local need for both affordable and accessible housing. It makes good use 

of an otherwise marginally usable site. 

I urge your support for this important and well-planned project. 

Sincerely, 

Eric R. Gelber 


ATTACHMENT 10 

From: Jeff Kieffer [mailto:Jeff.Kieffer@yolocounty.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:54 AM 

To: markbraly@sbcglobal.net; achoudhuri07@gmail.com; gclumpner@sbcglobal.net; 

daviddelapena@sbcglobal.net; wrhtiger@aol.com; kristopher.kordana@kp.org; mikelevy@pacbell.net; 

whittier@pacbell.net 

Cc: Eric Lee; Melissa Kieffer 

Subject: oposition to New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community, Planning Commission Item 61-07 

Member of the City of Davis Planning Commission, 

I am a Davis resident who lives near the proposed New Harmony development and I request that you 

oppose the planned development. I agree with other residents who have voiced their concern over the 

potential for increased crime, but I really take exception to the assumption that there is a “need” for more 

affordable housing. There are already several affordable developments in the area and the City of Davis 

already has requirements on any new regular development that a portion is set aside for affordable 

housing. If the planned development goes in, it will certainly make more affordable housing, my home 

included as it would tend to decrease property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. Is that what we 

really want to be doing in today’s already falling housing market! 

I also understand that this development hinges on potential funding that may not be available if this project is 

not approved by the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council in September. This leads me 

to believe that the project is being rushed through and that the only reason this project is being proposed is 

that there might be some money for it (which is NOT a good reason to do a project). 

Again, please oppose the project. 

Thank you, 

Jeff Kieffer P.E. 

Senior Civil Engineer 

Yolo County Planning and Public Works 

Division of Integrated Waste Management 

530-666-8855 

530-666-8853 (fax) 


From: Bonnie Gieschen [mailto:bghawkeye@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:00 PM 

To: Bob Wolcott 

Cc: Danielle Foster; Jesse Henkin; Julie Vyfhuis 

Subject: "New Harmony" NOT Harmonious 

Dear Sirs: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

I have been a South Davis resident since 1989 and I need to come out VERY STRONGLY against 

the proposed housing on the corner of Drummond and Cowell. My points: 

We have our share of low income housing in South Davis- we accepted the need for this and 

have not had a "Nimby" attitude until now. We HAVE seen more crime and vandalism and it is 

almost at the breaking point- but more importantly the school that would serve those kids is in 

CRISIS . Montgomery Elementary was almost placed on the "No child left behind failing list" a 

year ago and there are over 30% EL students there with the LARGEST underserved population 

in the City (now that Valley Oak is closed). Montgomery cannot stretch it's assets anymore. 

We need more business/retail in South Davis. About the only thing you can do in South 

Davis is buy a car, a few groceries or fast food. We have to travel across the freeway to: 

- swim in a public pool 

- go to the library 

- have a healthy meal 

- go to Junior High 

- go to High School 

- go to church 

- buy any hardware , clothes or other household supplies 

- have our kids in ANY city recreation program 

- take a class, karate etc 

WE ARE THE STEPCHILD of the City of Davis and we are TIRED of it! 

I, and virtually all of my neighbors, will come out strongly against this rezoning. The CITY has a 

PLAN- STICK TO IT!. 

Sincerely, B. Gieschen MD 


TO: City of Davis 

Subject: New Harmony affordable housing development 

cc: Davis Enterprise 

ATTACHMENT 10 

We have several concerns and issues associated with the proposed affordable housing 

development identified as New Harmony. While increased crime associated with the development 

has been mentioned as a concern by some who have attended the neighborhood meetings, this is 

not on our list. 

First on our list is “trust”. 

1. TRUST – As a prospective homeowner it is our job to research planned development in and 

around the neighborhood in which we intend to purchase a home. We “trust” that the city 

has made decisions and zoned the properties in question based on need and long range 

planning. Changes in zoning without consideration for those homeowners who based 

home buying decisions on the zoning in place at the time they purchased the home, 

violates the trust we have placed in the City of Davis in this regard. 

2. NEED – At the most recent neighborhood meeting, a city representative said that 60% of 

the people who work in Davis do not live here. Only when questioned further did she say 

that this included UCD. The question with regard to this statement and position by the city 

is, does more affordable housing address this situation? By law, new affordable housing 

cannot be assigned only to individuals who work in Davis. Neither the city or property 

management can control the origins of the residents. On the surface at least, it does not 

appear that additional affordable housing meets the “need” for those who work in Davis but 

don’t live here! 

3. RESPONSIBILITY – The city has a responsibility to homeowners in Davis; all of which pay 

property taxes and most who do work here to consider the impact of all development on a 

neighborhood. High-density multi family housing, whether affordable or market rate, does 

have a negative impact on a neighborhood. Mono Place and Koso have a very high 

number of multi family developments in the immediate vicinity. The impact of additional 

high-density multi family housing on a neighborhood must be considered by the city. 

4. PROCESS – After listening to the city and developer representatives at the two 

neighborhood meetings, it appears that New Harmony is a “done deal”! It appears that the 

city has decided the development will go forward BUT in order to meet legal requirements, 

it will have the neighborhood meetings, listen to the residents, keep records and then tell us 

they have already considered all our concerns (as the article in the September 9 th 

Enterprise intimated) and go forward. This may not be the case but it sure feels like it. 

We can hardly wait until the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday evening. We would 

love to see data supporting this development. 

Don Emlay & Deborah Osborn 


From: samnbad [mailto:samnbad@comcast.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:08 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: New Harmony Apartment Community Rezone 

Dear Mr. Lee: 

ATTACHMENT 10 

We are sending this memo to voice our strong concern regarding the proposed 

rezoning of the parcel at Cowell and South Drummond from its current commercial use to 

that of high density residential in order to provide a site for this proposed project. 

While we are not generally opposed to projects of this nature we believe there needs to 

be some equity in their distribution and the addition of this project within this 

quadrant of south Davis violates this principle. 

Our family has lived on Mono Place since 1998. We are currently the longest standing 

residents on this street and as such we have seen the infill around us. When we moved 

here in July 1998 there was the existing Rosewood low income complex at the west end of 

Mono at the junction with Ohlone. Since that time we have seen the city approve a low 

income complex directly to our east off of Drummond at Albany as well as the discreet 

housing complex/shelter for battered/abused women to the North of us that backs up to 

Cowell. While we were amenable and even supportive of the shelter project, we were less 

thrilled with the Albany complex which effectively sandwiched our neighborhood between 

two such projects. Since that time the increase in vandalisms, crimes and transient 

activity on our street and the adjacent bike path has increased substantially. Again, 

in the name of fairness and equity we have accepted this as we believe the city has 

attempted to create mixed use neighborhoods in all quadrants of the city. 

This pending project however steps over that line of equity, fairness in distribution of 

such projects across the city, and good judgment. This small sub area of Davis seems to 

be conveniently becoming a hub for these projects and I believe this is discriminatory 

and unwise. In addition to creating a density for low income that I do not see 

elsewhere in the city, it only furthers the imbalance of residential vs. business use 

parcels in Davis. Instead of rezoning for this use I would ask the city to consider 

options such as combining the proposed South Davis library site with the envisioned 

community center as a more reasonable and viable option. This approach would preserve 

the open use fields at Walnut Park and provide a daytime based use for this site that 

fulfills a community need. To place the community center and pool alongside the 

proposed apartment complex would potentially limit its use by the greater community of 

south Davis. 

If the city proceeds with this planned use we have sadly decided we will look to 

relocate either within the city or outside it which is a shame. We suspect we will not 

be the only ones. We moved here in 1998 explicitly because we believed in this 

community and wanted our children to be raised here, to attend the good schools and to 

have stable, safe neighborhoods and friends. By and large these aims have been met and 

we applaud the city for that. We finally have wonderful neighbors and a sense of 

community, however we would be remiss if we didn't state honestly that we feel this 

project is not in our neighborhoods best interest nor that of Davis, a city that prides 

itself on the quality of life for all its citizens and one that attempts to balance 

competing needs. In this case we don't believe that this principle is being upheld and 

thus ask that other options be considered. 

Very Truly, 

Shawn & Beverly Miller 


ATTACHMENT 11 

Planning Commission Minutes 

Community Chambers 

Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 7:00 p.m. 

Commissioners Present: Ananya Choudhuri, Greg Clumpner, David de la Pena, Rob 

Hofmann, Kris Kordana, Terry Whittier 

Commissioners Absent: Mark Braly, Mike Levy 

Staff Present: Mike Webb, Principal Planner; Eric Lee, Assistant Planner; 

Lynanne Mehlhaff, Planning Technician 

1. Call to Order 

Chairperson Clumpner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 

2. Approval of Agenda 

The agenda was approved by consensus. 

3. Staff and Commissioner Comments (No action). 

There were no staff or Commissioner comments. 

4. Public Communications 

There were no public communications. 

5. Consent Items 

A. Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2008 

B. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2008 


Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 11 


Page 2 

Action: Commissioner Whittier moved approval of the minutes of August 6 th and 

Chairperson Clumpner seconded the motion. Commissioners Kordana and de la 

Pena abstained due to being absent from the meeting. 

The motion passed 4-0-2 by consensus. 

Chairperson Clumpner moved approval of the May 14 th minutes with a second 

from Commissioner Kordana. Commissioners Hofmann and Whittier abstained 

due to being absent. 

The motion passed 4 -0 -2. 

6. Public Hearings 

A. PA #54-07, 1501 & 1515 Shasta Drive, University Retirement Center, 

Revised Final Planned Development #05-07, Design Review #23-07, 

Lot Line Adjustment #07-07; (Eric Lee, Assistant Planner) 

Public Hearing to consider an expansion that would add 17 new living 

units, a fitness center, and underground parking to University Retirement 

Community (URC) of Davis, a continuum care facility. The expansion 

consists of two additions totaling 36,281 square feet to the existing north 

wing of the main building and a new underground garage with 69 parking 

spaces. The additions include a 26,856 square-foot, four-story addition 

with 17 new living units for independent and assisted care and a 9,425 

square-foot, two-story addition with a fitness center and pool. 

Eric Lee, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. 

Chairperson Clumpner opened the public hearing. 

Mike Morris, Executive Administrator of University Retirement Community, said the addition 

and the Health and Wellness facility will be a tremendous benefit to the residents as well as to 

the Shasta Point residents. It will help mitigate parking concerns as well. He spoke about the 

car-sharing program. 

Chairperson Clumpner closed the public hearing. 

Action: Commissioner Hofmann moved approval of the project. Commissioner Kordana 

seconded the motion. 

AYES: Choudhuri, Whittier, Kordana, Hofmann, de la Pena, Clumpner 

The motion passed unanimously 6 to 0. 




Page 3 

B. PA #61-07, New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community, 

Southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond Avenue, 

General Plan Amendment #6-07, Specific Plan Amendment #1-08, 

Rezone #6-07, Final Planned Development #7-07, Design Review #27- 

07, Tentative Map #1-08, Minor Modification #2-08, Negative 

Declaration #7-07; (Eric Lee, Assistant Planner) 

Public Hearing to consider the construction of a 69-unit affordable 

apartment community on a vacant parcel in south Davis. Development 

would consist of approximately 70,000 square feet made up of two threestory 

apartment buildings (41,256 square feet and 23,175 square feet) and 

a one-story community building (3,871 square feet). The project includes 

landscaping, parking, play areas, a community garden, bicycle 

path/greenbelt, site and frontage improvements. The project includes a 

General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from 

“Business Park” to “Residential High Density,” a Rezone of the residential 

parcel from “Industrial Research” to “Multi-Family,” and a Specific Plan 

Amendment to reflect the changes. The office parcel would retain its 

Business Park designation and Industrial Research zoning. 

Eric Lee, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. 

Commissioner Kordana passed out a research article from Lancet2007 Feb17; 369:571-7 

published in “Journal Watch General Medicine” on March 6, 2007 which stated that children 

living within 500 meters of a freeway had significantly reduced lung development in an eight 

year follow-up study. He questioned the suitability of the site for housing in general in this 

location due to the air quality impacts in terms of lung development in children. He pointed out 

that the staff report concluded no significant impacts in terms of air quality citing local expert 

opinion. The study stated significant adverse effects of freeway proximity on the lung 

development of children independent of regional air quality. 

Commissioners asked for staff clarification on how the Initial Study was done in regards to air 

quality. Staff said there wasn’t a threshold for mobile sources since the Air Quality Management 

District doesn’t have one and the City doesn’t either. The initial study was done by a qualitative 

decision. 

Planning Commission recessed at 8:29 p.m. 

Planning Commission reconvened at 8:37 pm 

Chairperson Clumpner opened the public hearing. 

Rachel Iskow, Executive Director of both Yolo Mutual Housing Association and Sacramento 

Mutual Housing Association, explained the affiliation between SMHA and YMHA. She 




Page 4 

explained how their organization deals with crime and has a protocol with dealing with it such as 

criminal background checks, credit checks, etc. She described what programs they have to offer 

the members of a community such as the New Harmony development. 

Wendy Carter, Project Manager for New Harmony at the Sacramento Mutual Housing 

Association, stated how the methodology and mitigations were reviewed by the Air Quality 

Management District. She explained how they selected evergreen trees that would absorb 

particulates the best. She said they will use passive electrostatic filters in the HVAC systems as 

well as low water native plants, rain gardens, bioswales, community gardens and earn Build It 

Green certification. She mentioned they were on a very tight funding timeline and preferred a 

decision this evening. 

Don Emlay, a homeowner on Mono Place, said this parcel was zoned business park/Industrial 

research. He wondered what the homeowners in the area were supposed to think if they bought a 

house next to something zoned business park/industrial and the City suddenly changed it. He felt 

the Planning Commission and City Council had a bigger responsibility to the existing 

neighborhood that was there first then to someone who would be coming from outside of Davis. 

He was concerned now with what the City was going to do with the remaining vacant parcels. 

Mark Beckman, south Davis resident, was adamantly opposed to the project. He felt the map 

shown was deceiving because there was more higher density then shown. The Women’s Shelter 

wasn’t shown on the map either. He wanted to know what kind of revenue this project would 

generate for the City. 

Christian Renaudin, homeowner and businessman in south Davis, said more 

commercial/business areas were needed for small offices and businesses. He said businesses 

could go here and they belong along the freeway, not residential. 

Chris Stewart, homeowner on Koso Street, said he bought his house with the understanding that 

the proposed site would be business. He pointed out that Dixon has lots of businesses off the 

freeway and people find them. He said due to the traffic on I-80, the frontage road, Chiles Road, 

was getting very busy. He recommended sticking to the General Plan. 

Fran Olman, long time Davis homeowner and a member of the Board of YMHA, supported the 

project. She said affordable housing was needed here in Davis for people to live and work. 

Larry Filazzo, homeowner in Davis and high school teacher, spoke in support of the project. He 

has visited many of both Sacramento and Yolo Mutual Housing Association developments and 

they are very well designed and managed. 

Torrey Bavard, resident on Christie Court, purchased her home 12 years ago and was happy 

about business going in this area. She was against the project due to it being high density on a 




Page 5 

very small parcel. She said the Owendale Project was in her backyard, a good project but there 

are issues from it. There has been an increase in crime in their area and big increase in traffic 

and vandalism. There are now more problems in the Village Park nearby and her daughter feels 

it unsafe. She didn’t feel this project was keeping with the Davis she knows, the project looks 

like it belongs in San Francisco. She felt it wasn’t a good solution for families there because it 

was an odd parcel, too close to the freeway. 

Robin Frank, homeowner of Davis, supported the project. She said affordable housing was 

needed in Davis and it benefits everybody. 

Rita Seiber, owner of a property 1/3 of a mile away in the same zoning district as this proposal, 

said Hanlee’s offered to buy her property two years ago and the City rejected it. Since then, she 

has proposed a project of 19 units with an office building but the City has it placed on the bottom 

of the “Housing Needs Assessment” list (ranked #33 of 37 sites). 

Dan Rigor, owner in Rosecreek #2, was concerned by this project. He said with Owendale near 

the corner, there will be a lot more traffic and this is a big change. It isn’t all about the people 

who will potentially live here in these spaces, it is also the neighboring community that has been 

thriving and growing next door. 

Lelanie Heath, Yolo Mutual Housing Association Board member, said that the DJUSD wrote a 

letter saying that this project will help by providing more students and school impact fees to the 

School District. She said she lived in Tremont Green and felt that any project built here could 

increase the crime rate. She supported the project. 

Mindy Ramaro, Board Member of YMHA and resident of Tremont Green, said this was a family 

project and it was important for the whole community. She said the quality of the affordable 

housing here was very good. 

Chairperson Clumpner closed the public hearing. 

Commissioner comments: 

- Suggested that staff look at a peer review from the “Lancet” Journal Watch article 

and find out about it. 

- Suggested postponing the meeting for two weeks so staff could get more information 

on this study and get other advice/credibility on it. This could affect other projects in 

the future and the City needs to know the information. 

- Would like to see how the comparison is to Los Angeles where this study was done 

with Davis and the I-80 freeway and the pollution amounts. 

- Should keep in mind how the projections for increase in traffic on I-80 in the next 10 

years was predicted at a 30-50% increase in vehicles. Should consider the amount of 

emissions from that increase. 




Page 6 

- Would like to see how many complaints to the Police Department from addresses of 

the low income housing complexes in the area. 

- This comes down to environmental justice and social justice. More information is 

needed on the mitigation measures to determine if the site is safe for families. 

- Was troubled by the sentiment in a letter that said low income children shouldn’t 

attend school with their children. 

- Besides the air quality issues, this seems like a good site – close to schools, etc. 

- Couldn’t vote and recommend adopting the Initial Study right now until more 

information and clarification is provided. Not comfortable with the noise and air 

quality studies. Our recommendations would be based on subjective thresholds and 

measures. 

- Future residents deserve safe and pleasant housing; it isn’t the project itself, it is the 

location. Can’t support the project here. 

- 69 families are on a waiting list looking for a place to live in Davis; only infill is left 

in Davis. Would vote approval of project to go forward to the City Council along 

with the recommendations to review the actual study on children living near a 

freeway. In support of the actual project but let the City Council decide. 

- Unfortunately, this study of 3600 children living 500 meters near a freeway came out 

after the planning of this project. This has nothing to do with the organizations who 

are involved or the need for affordable housing. Can’t approve this project, we have 

a responsibility to the health of children. There are other options in Davis. 

- A well-designed project and supported the design of the project. 

Action: 

Commissioner Kordana moved to deny staff recommendations of adopting the Initial Study, the 

Resolutions and the rezoning of the project. Commissioner Choudhuri seconded the motion. 

Commissioner Whittier substituted the motion to move approval of the project per staff 

recommendation and include the report from Commissioner Kordana (research article from 

Lancet2007 Feb17; 369:571-7) to the City Council. Commissioner de la Pena seconded the 

motion and wanted the comments made tonight on the project passed on and other comments 

about the crime and other issues. Chairperson Clumpner agreed and added that overall the 

Commission liked the actual design and project and the City Council should hear that no matter 

what happens with the vote. 

AYES: Whittier, de la Pena, 

NOES: Choudhuri, Kordana, Hofmann, Clumpner 

The substitute motion to approve the project failed 4 to 2. 

AYES: Choudhuri, Kordana, Hofmann, Clumpner 

NOES: Whittier, de la Pena 

The motion to deny the project passed 4 to 2. 



TO: Planning Commission 

ATTACHMENT 12 

Staff Report 

FROM: Katherine Hess, Community Development Director 

Michael Webb, Principal Planner 


SUBJECT: New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community 

Item No: _________ 

Meeting Date: September 10, 2008 

FILE NO.: Planning Application #61-07 – General Plan Amendment #06-07, Specific Plan 

Amendment #01-08, Rezone #06-07, Final Planned Development #07-07, Design 

Review #27-07, Tentative Map #01-08, Minor Modification #02-08, Negative 

Declaration #07-07 

RECOMMENDATION 

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 

1. Recommend the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 

(ND#07-07) prepared for the project which determines that potential impacts of the 

project, with mitigation, would be less than significant (Attachment 18); and 

2. Recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan to change 

the land use designation of the subject parcel from “Business Park” to “High Density 

Residential” (Attachment 3); and 

3. Recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the South Davis Specific 

Plan to change the land use designation of the subject parcel from “Industrial Research” 

to “Multi-Family” (Attachment 4); and 

4. Recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Planned Development 12-87 

of the Municipal Code to rezone the subject parcel from “Industrial Research” to “Multi- 

Family” (Attachment 5); and 

5. Recommend the City Council approve Planning Application #61-07 for the new 

construction, site improvements, and tentative map based on the findings (Attachment 1) 

and subject to the conditions (Attachment 2) contained in this staff report. 


PC Meeting Date – September 10, 2008 


Page 2 of 32 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The applicant, Yolo County Mutual Housing Association (YMHA)/Sacramento Mutual Housing 

Association (SMHA), is proposing to develop the New Harmony affordable housing community, 

comprised of 69 apartment units, on a vacant parcel in South Davis. The project is targeted at 

meeting identified community housing needs for very-low income households. A minimum of 25 

units will be for families earning 35% of the area median income (AMI). The remainder of the 

units will be affordable for families earning between 35% and 60% of AMI. All units will be 

fully visitable and a minimum of 20% will be accessible. The mutual housing model encourages 

participation in decision-making by its residents to create a greater sense of ownership. Residents 

may serve on the Association Board or participate on the local Resident Council which is 

involved in making on-site decisions. See Figure 1 for a conceptual aerial view. 

The project site includes a land dedication site with a requirement for a minimum of 15 units and 

an adjacent parcel purchased by the applicant with City loan assistance. The applications would 

create a 3.38-acre residential parcel and allow development of a larger site that better meets the 

city’s housing needs, enables a fiscally-feasible project for the applicant, provides a greater 

amount of open space and amenities, and incorporates green building measures and sustainability 

principles. The project would include a community building and on-site management that would 

provide a variety of services, training, and support programs for residents and their children. 

The applicant has worked with the City to develop a project that meets local housing needs and 

implements City priorities and General Plan policies for affordable housing, accessibility, infill, 

land use, sustainability, and design. Staff believes the project is an attractive and innovative 

design that is appropriate for the site and compatible with the neighborhood. The site has good 

roadway access; it is adjacent to public transit and a proposed greenbelt/bicycle path; and it is 

convenient to shopping and services. Overall, the applicant has presented a strong and wellconceived 

project. Although the project has many attributes, the site is not ideal and there are 

site-related issues and neighborhood concerns that should be considered. The project also 

involves policy questions of land use and housing that get evaluated in a city-wide context. 

Key Issues 

Key project issues are: 

1. Is housing appropriate on the site? 

2. Are the potential noise and air quality impacts of I-80 adequately addressed? 

3. Is affordable housing appropriate on the site? 

4. Is there an over-concentration of affordable housing in the neighborhood? 

The project requires a change in the General Plan land use designation for the site from Business 

Park to Residential High Density. While loss of commercial land in the city is a concern, the 

location and size of the site seriously constrains potential commercial development. On the other 

hand, the site offers an opportunity to provide needed housing consistent with City goals and 

priorities. The site is within 500 feet of Interstate 80 and potential housing would have to 

contend with highway noise and air quality impacts. However, staff believes that the project 

design and required conditions and mitigation measures can adequately address these impacts. 

In addition, affordable housing often brings out neighborhood opposition and concerns about 

local impacts. The project has involved several neighborhood meetings, update letters, and 





public noticing. Initial comment during preliminary stages raised concerns, but did not identify 

substantial opposition. However, more recently opposition to the project has been voiced by 

residents who have participated and commented on the project. A common thread expressed is a 

concern about an over-concentration of affordable housing sites in the neighborhood and 

problems created by the existing affordable apartments that would be exacerbated by this project. 

Staff believes that specific neighborhood concerns and questions about traffic, parking, crime, 

and project design have been addressed by the project or as conditions of approval. It also 

requires an on-going commitment by apartment management. As part of their concerns, 

neighbors have cited problems with the adjacent Owendale Apartments. However, staff found 

that conditions have improved due to better management and communication and City and police 

involvement. Nevertheless, the perception of problems can persist. It should be noted that he 

project also provides neighborhood benefits through noise mitigation, completion of the 

greenbelt/bicycle trail, and development of the vacant parcel. In addition, potential future 

residents who lack a vocal advocate for their interests also deserve a safe and pleasant living 

environment that would be provided by the project. 

Although the project will be reviewed based on its own merits, it is reasonable to consider what 

the feasible alternatives for the site may be. Commercial development is unlikely. To date, the 

site and the other nearby business park parcels have not proven attractive to any development 

currently permitted. The determination was reinforced in an economic feasibility study that 

included the project site and found commercial development on the site generally infeasible. 

Other residential development on the site could be considered. However, it would still have to 

deal with the neighborhood issues and highway impacts. Development of single-family housing 

would probably require an undesirable sound wall and housing would be located even closer to 

the highway. Furthermore, other locations in the city already exist that are designated for and are 

more appropriate for single-family housing, while there are no vacant sites zoned for multifamily 

housing that could accommodate the proposed project. Other multi-family housing at this 

location would potentially face similar neighborhood, design, and policy issues. 

Significant changes to the project itself could affect funding sources as well as City requirements 

in the loan agreement. Lowering the project density is not financially feasible without either 

increasing subsidies to maintain the rent structure or increasing the income levels of the targeted 

population. There has been no identified need for the site as a public facility or park. While the 

site could remain a vacant parcel, it would contribute little to the city or the neighborhood. It 

would represent a missed opportunity for a good infill project and much needed affordable 

housing. Previous review of the funding proposals and the project concept by the Social Services 

Commission garnered their unanimous support. 

Overall, staff believes the project is compatible with the neighborhood. The project and site 

improvements represent a significant investment in the property that would provide benefits to 

the neighborhood and provide high-quality affordable housing. However, staff also recognizes 

that concerns have been raised about existing issues and potential additional impacts. After 

reviewing the merits of the project and considering applicant and public comments, the Planning 

Commission has the discretion to recommend to the City Council approval, denial, or 

modifications to the project that it deems necessary. 





N 

I-80 

Cowell Blvd. 

Figure 1. Conceptual Aerial View 

Office Parcel 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SETTING 

The applicant is requesting approvals to allow construction of a 69-unit, affordable rental 

apartment community, New Harmony Community. Development would consist of 

approximately 70,000 square feet made up of two three-story apartment buildings (41,256 sq. ft. 

and 23,175 sq. ft.) and a one-story community building (3,871 sq. ft.). The one, two, and threebedroom 

apartment units would range in size from 667 square feet to 1,130 square feet. The 

project includes landscaping, parking, play areas, a community garden, bicycle path/greenbelt, 

site and frontage improvements (Figure 2 – Site Plan). Proposed density is approximately 20 

units per acre on the residential parcel. 

The project site consists of three parcels (1.09 acres, 2.56 acres, and 0.75 acres) and is split by 

Cowell Boulevard which cuts through the site. A tentative parcel map would merge and 

resubdivide the parcels into two parcels, a 3.38-acre residential parcel on the south side of 

Cowell Boulevard and a 1.16 business park/office remainder parcel on the north side of Cowell 

Boulevard. The apartment development would be constructed on the new parcel on the south 

side of Cowell Boulevard. No development or change is proposed on the triangular office parcel 

as part of this project, except to create a separate legal lot. However, it could be developed in the 

future with offices or other uses consistent with the zoning. 

While the current zoning allows a multi-family use with a Conditional Use Permit, the project 

includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from “Business Park” to 

“Residential High Density,” a Rezone of the residential parcel from “Industrial Research” to 

“Multi-Family,” and a Specific Plan Amendment to reflect the changes. The office parcel would 

retain its Business Park designation and Industrial Research zoning. The applications include a 

Minor Modification to allow an increase in the height of the apartment buildings from 38 feet to 

41 feet 9 inches. 

The attached resolution to amend the General Plan is a batched amendment that includes 

amendments for projects for which the City Council previously adopted resolutions of intent to 

amend the General Plan and does not affect this project. 





N 

Figure 2. Site Plan 

Project Setting 

The project site is a vacant site located at the southwest corner of Cowell Boulevard and 

Drummond Avenue in south Davis (Figure 3 – Vicinity Map). It consists of two properties. One 

property is a 0.75-acre parcel owned by the City as a land dedication site. The other property is a 

3.65-acre parcel previously owned by the Lillard family, referred to as the Lillard parcel. The 

property is split by Cowell Boulevard into a 2.56-acre parcel on the south side and a triangularshaped 

1.16-acre parcel on the north side. The combined land dedication site and southern 

portion of the Lillard parcel would compose the proposed residential site and would be 3.38 

acres in size after adjustments. The project site is flat. Vegetation consists primarily of a mix of 

non-native grasses with several small trees scattered about. The triangular parcel is a disturbed 

site and contains blacktop remnants of Chiles Road and power lines. 

The site is bounded by a mix of uses and facilities. To the immediate east of the site are several 

vacant parcels designated for business park, retail, and residential use. One of the sites is the 

approved Willowcreek Commons site, an attached single-family residential project. The 

Owendale Community apartments are located south of the site. A commercial/business park site 

to the west contains a UC Davis bookstore warehouse. A City well site with driveway access 

borders the site on its western boundary. A designated City bicycle pathway and greenbelt will 

run along the southern border between the site and the Owendale Community and would be 

improved as part of this project. North of the project site is Interstate 80. Single-family 

residences surround the general area. Surrounding land uses are summarized in Table 2 below. 





Table 2. Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses: 

Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation 

Project Vacant PD 12-87 

Business Park 

Site 

(Industrial Research) 

North Interstate 80 N/A N/A 

South Owendale Apartments PD 1-92 (Multi-Family) Residential – Medium Density 

East Vacant; PD 6-87 (Office Research); Business Park; 

PD 2-02 (Willowcreek Neighborhood Retail; 

Commons) Residential - Low Density 

West UCD Warehouse; PD 10-72; 

Business Park 

City Well Site PD 12-87 

Business Park 


Location 

Residential - Low Density 

Neighborhood 

Retail 

Neighborhood 

Greenbelt 

Residential - Medium Density 

Business Park 

Residential - 

Medium Density 

Residential - Low Density 

Figure 3. Vicinity Map and General Plan Designations 

10/07/2008 City Council Meeting 06 - 156 

N




PROJECT DATA 

Applicant/Owner: Sacramento Mutual Housing Assoc. 

c/o Wendy Carter 

3451 Fifth Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 95817 

Project Area: 

Office Parcel 

Residential Parcel 

Lillard Parcel 

Dedication Site 

(069-020-46) 



Existing 

1.09 acres 

2.56 acres 

0.75 acres 

Yolo Mutual Housing Assoc. 

c/o Kim Coontz 

430 F Street 


Proposed 

1.16 acres 

3.38 acres 

Table 1: Existing & Proposed Designations 


Site 

Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning 

Existing 

General Plan 

Proposed 

General Plan 

Office 

Parcel 

PD 12-87 

Industrial Research 

No Change Business Park No Change 

Residential 

Parcels 

PD 12-87 

Industrial Research 

PD 12-87 

Multi-Family 

Business Park 

Residential 

High Density 

Table 2. Building Square Footage* 

1 st Floor 2 nd Floor 3 rd Floor Total Space 

Conditioned 

Building B 13,752 sq. ft. 13,752 sq. ft. 13,752 sq. ft. 41,256 sq. ft. 

Building C 7,725 sq. ft. 7,725 sq. ft. 7,725 sq. ft. 23,175 sq. ft. 

Total 21,477 sq. ft. 21,477 sq. ft. 21,477 sq. ft. 64,431 sq. ft. 

Community 

Building 

3,871 sq. ft --- --- 3,871 sq. ft. 

*Does not include patios, breezeway, stairs, storage areas. 

Table 3. Type, Number and Size of Units 

Unit A (667 sq.ft.) Unit B (846 sq.ft.) Unit C (1,130 sq.ft.) Total Units 

1 BD/1 BTH 2 BD/2 BTH 3 BD/2 BTH Per Building 

Building B 6 units 24 units 15 units 45 units 

Building C 3 units 9 units 12 units 24 units 

Total 9 units 33 units 27 units 69 units 

Ratio 13% 48% 39% 100% 





PROJECT BACKGROUND 

Project Site Background 

The 0.75-acre parcel off of Cowell Boulevard was given to the City as a land dedication site as 

part of the Oakshade Development. The dedication included the requirement to build a minimum 

of 15 units on it for affordable housing. At the same time an amendment to Planned 

Development #12-87, Ordinance 2024, was adopted by the City Council adding Multi-Family 

residential uses to the list of conditional uses for the parcel’s zoning: Industrial Research District. 

The land dedication site borders a vacant property (Lillard parcel) located at the north and 

southwest corners of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond Avenue. The Lillard parcel consists of 

two parcels split by Cowell Boulevard, the southern parcel being 2.56 acres and the northern 

parcel being 1.09 acres. The northern parcel, and surrounding parcels, were once considered for a 

possible highway interchange, but were not chosen. The Lillard parcel is part of a group of sites 

adjacent to the freeway that have been designated for Business Park uses, but have remained 

undeveloped. Although the properties have good highway visibility, the sites lacks good access 

to the highway for potential customers. In 2004, a Commercial Feasibility Study was prepared 

for the City by Economics Research Associates and included the subject property which was 

called the “Lillard Parcel” in the study. The study determined that commercial development of 

the site was “Highly Infeasible” for most uses. Three uses, automobile dealership, mixed use 

small office with residential and small office on small parcels, were considered “Somewhat 

Infeasible.” Selected pages from the study are included as Attachment 7. 

As a marginal commercial site, it was determined appropriate for the City to consider alternative 

development of the property. Proximity to the Oakshade land dedication site offered an 

opportunity for a larger site that would allow for more efficient and feasible affordable housing 

development, greater amenities, and more housing to address local needs. Potential development 

of the 0.75-acre Oakshade site by itself presents some difficulties. Its small size does not meet 

the City’s current minimum size requirements for a land dedication site. Development to 

accommodate the 15-unit minimum would be difficult due to its size, the reduction in economies 

of scale related to construction costs, its less competitive status in State and Federal funding 

applications, and operational challenges of a small rental housing project. Other local affordable 

rental projects that are 15 units or fewer operate at a deficit or barely break even each year on 

their budgets. Development of this land dedication site on its own, as a 15 unit project, would 

likely require that the City be the majority or sole investor in completing in the project and it is 

unlikely that the City would get an equivalent return on its investment due to the small project 

size. The development proposal for the site is included as Attachment 8. 

The project is being proposed as a joint effort between Yolo Mutual Housing Association 

(YMHA), a local housing non-profit, and Sacramento Mutual Housing Association (SMHA), a 

Sacramento-based housing non-profit), two organizations that have recently affiliated as 

partners. YMHA and SMHA have developed and operate a number of permanently affordable 

communities. YMHA owns affordable housing throughout the city, including Twin Pines, Moore 

Village, Tremont Green, and the adjacent 45-unit Owendale Apartment Community. 





Purchase of Lillard Parcel 

At their January 9, 2007 meeting, the City Council approved a loan of $900,000 for YMHA/ 

SMHA’s purchase of the property, based on conditions of affordability for housing developed at 

the site (Attachment 9). The approval included direction to the applicant, City staff, and Planning 

Commission to analyze and consider during the project review process neighborhood concerns 

that had been raised at a neighborhood meeting on November 15, 2006. Issues included: 

a. Project density appropriate for traffic and parking issues in the current neighborhood. 

b. Adequate parking for expected residents of the parcels. 

c. Appropriate models of permanently affordable housing for the site. 

d. The impact of the proposed housing development on local schools. 

e. Alternative sites for affordable housing development. 

f. Impacts of the project on the remaining light industrial/business park parcels along 

Interstate 80. 

g. Traffic impacts from the proposed project on the surrounding neighborhood. 

Additionally, the Loan Agreement on the project specifies 60 to 70 units in the project. Units are 

to be affordable to households at 60% and 50% Area Median Income (AMI) and below, with a 

focus on 50% and below. Staff believes the issues listed above have been adequately considered 

and addressed. This model proposed by this project would provide permanent affordable housing 

at the required income levels. A for-sale housing model would not be feasible to serve the 

income groups identified for this project. The mutual housing model also provides a sense of 

ownership and accountability for residents who are encouraged to participate in general decisionmaking 

and governance of individual sites. For both YMHA and SMHA residents hold 40-50% 

of the board positions and Resident Councils at each community meet monthly to make 

important site-based decisions. Staff believes the issues have been adequately considered and 

addressed. 

Land Dedication Site and Project Funding 

At their July 24, 2007 meeting, the City Council awarded development of the land dedication site 

to YMHA and SMHA. The Social Services Commission had reviewed the proposal at their 

meeting on July 16, 2007 and recommended awarding the site to YMHA/SMHA. It allowed the 

applicant to combine the two sites to develop a larger 69-unit project that provides more open 

space and greater amenities. The majority of the project would be affordable housing for 

extremely low and very low income families. Target households served by the project would be 

60%, 50%, and 35% of Area Median Income (AMI). The resolution awarding the land 

dedication included the following requirements (Attachment 10). 

a. Project consisting of 15 affordable units, as required by this site, and a minimum of 60 

units for the total development of this parcel and the neighboring corner parcel. 

b. Development of this project with the neighboring parcel shall maximize distance from the 

freeway (to mitigate health and noise impacts), include but not be limited to health and 

noise mitigations measures such as construction materials, landscaping barriers and a 

berm, provide accessibility to the greatest extent possible - aiming for complete project 

accessibility, and maximize energy efficiency aspects throughout the project. 

c. YMHA and SMHA’s development of this site and the corner parcel shall incorporate a 

process that will continue to include outreach to the neighborhood surrounding the land 





dedication site and to allow for input during the design phases, in an effort to integrate 

the project into its respective neighborhood. 

d. Construction of this site shall commence no later than October 1, 2009. 

e. Construction of the project shall not commence until YMHA and SMHA can demonstrate 

that there is adequate financing available for the construction and permanent financing of 

the project. 

f. As proposed, in combination with the neighboring corner parcel, a minimum of 25 units 

shall be provide for households at or below 35% of Area Median Income, at least fifty 

percent of the units shall be provided for very-low income households at or below 50% of 

Area Median Income, and the remainder of the units shall be provided to households at or 

below 60% of Area Median Income. 

Staff believes the applicant has complied with or is able to comply with the requirements. The 

$250,000 loan from City HOME funds that was committed to the project in April 2007 has 

assisted YMHA and SMHA with the predevelopment costs of planning the project (planning 

application, environmental studies, architectural services, engineering, etc.). In addition to that 

loan, the City and Redevelopment Agency committed $5,950,000 to these non-profits in April 

2008 as assistance for the completion of the project, subject to the following conditions: 

a. The project must continue neighborhood outreach, obtain planning approvals, address 

potential impacts of this development on the remaining light industrial/business park 

parcels along I-80, and address concerns related to potential noise and air quality impacts 

due to the project’s proximity to the freeway. 

b. At least 60 units shall be included in the New Harmony project, with a minimum of 25 

extremely low income units (for households at 35% of AMI) and no less than half of total 

project units as low income units (for households at 50% of AMI). Remaining units shall 

be provided to households at or below 60% of AMI. All of the units shall remain 

affordable in perpetuity. 

c. Consistent with the Agency land loan to the project, construction of the project shall start 

prior to the July 1, 2009 deadline, or this funding commitment will expire and would 

require renewal by the Agency Board. 

d. YMHA and SMHA must actively pursue other financing options and cost savings 

opportunities that reduce their dependence on City and Agency assistance whenever 

possible, while not compromising the quality of the project, project reserves, or the 

project’s energy efficiency. 

e. Construction of the project shall not commence until YMHA and SMHA can demonstrate 

that there is adequate funding committed for the project’s construction and permanent 

financing. 

f. All City and Agency legal fees associated with their loans to the New Harmony project 

and other staff time associated with the project that is not paid for by project planning 

fees shall be paid for through loan proceeds in an amount not to exceed $45,000. If 

portions of this allotment are unused, the City and Agency funding commitment will be 

reduced by the same amount of unused funds. 

g. Yolo Mutual Housing Association and Sacramento Mutual Housing Association shall 

take the necessary steps and shall provide adequate documentation during all project 

phases (planning, construction, and permanent financing) to ensure that one or both of the 





organizations maintain status as a Community Housing Development Organization, or 

“CHDO” under the federal HOME program. 

h. The project pro forma shall generally be maintained in accordance with the version 

submitted with the HOME application, allowing for updates based on construction cost 

changes and the results of other funding applications. YMHA and SMHA shall maintain 

its commitment to contributing over a million dollars in equity to the project, deferring at 

least fifteen percent of the developer fee, and splitting cash developer fee from the 

project. 

i. The Agency expects that the project will take all necessary steps to avoid returning to the 

Agency Board for additional funds, including the reduction of project developer fees if 

project costs exceed budget. 

j. Agency assistance shall be based on City assistance to the project and the two shall not 

exceed $5,950,000 in combined loans. 

Staff believes the applicant has complied with or is able to comply with these requirements as 

well. During its review of the New Harmony project proposal in March 2008, as part of the 

CDBG/HOME funding allocation process, the Social Services Commission provided the 

following comments on the project: 

Support for a project that responds to a local need for family affordable housing, 

evidenced by local waiting lists, through the provision of two- and three-bedroom units. 

Excitement that the City will be able to provide extremely low income units to families. 

Recognition of the project, as the first to be developed as fully accessible (in accordance 

with City direction). 

The Social Services Commission unanimously voted in favor of funding the New Harmony 

project and voiced support and approval for the levels of affordability and accomplishment of 

full accessibility in the project. 

General Plan Housing Update and Local Need 

During 2007-2008, the City engaged in a State-required update to the City’s Housing Element to 

cover the period between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2013. The effort was spearheaded by the 

General Plan Update Steering Committee appointed by the City Council. The Steering 

Committee was charged with overseeing the process and making a recommendation to the 

Planning Commission and City Council. The Steering Committee’s recommendations were 

published in its “Study and Identification of Potential Housing Sites in Davis.” The subject site, 

called Oakshade Affordable Housing Site, was included in the study of potential housing sites. 

The Steering Committee evaluated a total of 37 sites and ranked them in categories using 

principles based on General Plan policies, SACOG Smart Growth Principles, and community 

input. The Oakshade Affordable Housing Site was ranked 26 (Attachment 11). This ranking 

placed it in the “Yellow Light” category of sites, which is a secondary ranking. Factors favoring 

the site included proximity to greenbelts, schools, and shopping and the affordable housing funds 

and land dedication site that the developer had attained. The major concern about the site was its 

proximity to the freeway with related noise and air pollution. The study included the following 

recommendations when considering potential site development: 





Site design to mitigate I-80 noise. 

Maximize setback from freeway. Consider restricting housing units to southern half of 

site. 

Attempt to develop triangular parcel on north side of Cowell Boulevard with buildings to 

provide a barrier to I-80. 

The overall density of the site should be at the high end of the medium density range. 

The “Yellow Light” sites were recommended for development if the higher ranking “Green 

Light” sites were not developed. The rankings and criteria used did not consider the feasibility or 

likelihood that the sites would be developed. On June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission 

reviewed the Steering Committee recommendations and generally supported them. However, 

the Planning Commission also supported staff’s recommendation to move the Oakshade 

Affordable Housing site into the “Green Light” category based on the following rationale: 

City Council has provided assistance to a non-profit group for this affordable 

housing development. The affordable units to be provided in the project are part of 

the City’s site inventory to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in 

the current Housing Element submitted to the California Department of Housing and 

Community Development (HCD). 

Inclusion of this site in the site inventory to meet RHNA, or identification of another site to 

provide the required affordable units, is necessary for the City to meet State RHNA requirements 

and have a certified Housing Element. Having a certified Housing Element with the state makes 

the City and projects within the city eligible for state funding applications. On July 22, 2008, the 

City Council reviewed the recommendations and requested additional information on other areas 

of the report. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to discuss the City’s plan for future 

potential housing sites again in October 2008. 

The City of Davis has not had affordable family rental housing made available since Moore 

Village opened in Summer 2005. If approved, New Harmony would likely open in Fall 2010. 

The City has never been able to provide affordable housing for families at extremely low income 

levels (30% of Area Median Income) such as what New Harmony would include; households in 

this income category tend to overpay for housing or use Section 8 rental assistance to pay higher 

rents. Based on the Housing Needs Analysis completed as part of the Housing Element Update, 

housing affordable to families at low and very low incomes is a critical need in the City of Davis. 

Approximately 1,200 Davis workers at these income levels commute into Davis for work rather 

than reside within the city, and sixty-six percent, or 4,436 very low income households renting in 

Davis are paying 50% or more of their income towards housing costs each month. 

Planning Commission Review 

The project requires Planning Commission review of the applications. However the City 

Council is the approval body for the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments and Rezone. 

Consequently, the entitlements for the entire project will be reviewed by the City Council for 

final action with consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation. 





KEY PROJECT ISSUES 

1. Is housing appropriate on the site? 

The proposed project involves a change in the land use designation from Business Park to a 

Residential designation and requires amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan and a 

Rezone. It raises the policy question of whether the site is appropriate for housing and requires 

consideration of General Plan policies, City goals, and land use compatibilities. 

General Plan Amendment 

The existing General Plan designation for the site is Business Park. Its purpose is to allow for a 

hybrid of industrial and office parks containing a various office uses, technology, light 

manufacturing, and warehousing facilities. The Business Park designation conditionally allows 

residential uses as a secondary use. However, the project proposes residential as the primary use. 

The amendment would change the designation on the 3.38 acres located on the south side of 

Cowell Boulevard to High Density Residential, which allows a density of 16.8 to 30.0 units per 

net acre. The New Harmony project would have a density of approximately 20 units per acre and 

the amendment would ensure consistency. The 1.16-acre parcel on the north side of Cowell 

Boulevard would keep the Business Park designation (Attachment 3). 

The intent of the Residential category, as stated in the General Plan, is to allow for: 

Residential development emphasizing compact clustered development in new 

areas and infill in existing neighborhoods, together with a mixture of localserving 

retail and institutional uses, to meet housing demands, reduce pressure 

for peripheral growth and facilitate transit and bicycle/pedestrian travel. 

The proposed project meets the intent of the Residential designation. It is an infill development 

project that fills an identified housing need and is conveniently located near transit and 

bicycle/pedestrian paths. It would implement various General Plan goals and policies for Land 

Use, Urban Design, and Housing. Analysis of applicable policies demonstrating project 

compliance with General Plan policies is included as Attachment 16. The most relevant policies 

are summarized below. 

Provide a mix of housing types and densities (LU A.3; Housing 1.1); 

Revise the land use map to ensure the supply of land for residential development for all 

income levels can be accommodated. It could include redesignating land from nonresidential 

to residential use or selective infill and provision of sites with zoning to 

accommodate density and development standards for low income housing (LU 1.11). 

Create affordable multi-family areas with innovative designs, open space amenities, and 

links to bicycle/pedestrian ways (UD 2.4). 

Provide an adequate supply of rental housing, a range and variety of housing for low 

income families and disabled persons (Housing 1.1; 1.1a; 1.2; 1.3; 1.4). 

Strive to meet the identified five-year need for housing affordable to extremely low, very 

low, low, and moderate income households (Housing 2). 

One of the key General Plan land use principles is to focus growth within the city’s boundaries 

and to encourage infill development. Project compliance with the Interim Infill Guidelines is 

included at Attachment 17. Key guidelines include complete and integrated neighborhoods with 





housing near shopping, transit, greenbelts; a mix of housing types, densities, rents; efficient use 

of infrastructure and services; compatible design and uses; and green building measures. Staff 

believes the project is consistent with the Infill Guidelines and reduces the pressure for 

peripheral development to provide the needed housing. 

Specific Plan Amendment 

The project includes an amendment to the South Davis Specific Plan (SDSP) to reflect the 

proposed changes (Attachment 4). The SDSP was adopted by the City Council on July 15, 1987 

with several revisions approved afterwards. The Specific Plan covered approximately 826 acres 

with 507 acres to be developed according to the plan. The Environmental Impact Report adopted 

for the SDSP included mitigation measures to address potential impacts. It also included a 

statement of overriding considerations for impacts related to loss of agricultural land, loss of 

natural resources, and traffic congestion. The SDSP designates the subject site as Industrial 

Research. Applicable policies, measures, and land use designations from the SDSP have been 

incorporated into the 2001 General Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment incorporates the 

changes by reference and would change land use designation for the site in the SDSP from 

Industrial Research to Multi-Family to ensure consistency. 

Rezoning 

The project proposes to rezone the site from Industrial Research to a Multi-Family district under 

the existing PD 12-87 zoning (Attachment 5). The purpose of the Industrial Research district is 

to provide locations for large-scale administrative facilities, research institutions and specialized 

manufacturing. Zoning for PD 12-87 Industrial Research and Multi-Family districts is included 

as Attachment 12. 

The project includes the Oakshade land dedication site which requires development of a 

minimum of 15 units. When the land was dedicated it included an amendment to PD 12-87 

Industrial Research district adding multi-family residential uses as a conditional use (Attachment 

13). The change already addressed the basic question of whether multi-family housing is 

appropriate at this location determining that it is generally compatible. The rezone of the site to 

Multi-Family improves consistency. The project meets applicable development standards of the 

district. Project specific standards are established in the Final Planned Development. 

Loss of Commercial Land 

Although the project would result in the loss of a Business Park site, staff believes the 

community benefits outweigh the loss. Staff recognizes that the loss of commercial sites in the 

city is hard to replace. However, feasibility of developing the site for commercial uses is very 

low. Review of the project by Economic Development staff did not raise any significant 

concerns and the conversion would not conflict with any Economic Development policies. There 

are possible economic development benefits from housing local employees. As residents they 

would conduct more local shopping and there would be environmental benefits from less 

commuting. 

Other development alternatives for the site such as a park or public facility are not needed. Site 

specific issues related to the highway can be addressed. Conversion of the site to residential 

would not negatively impact the neighborhood or viability of nearby businesses and the proposed 





project would be consistent with General Plan policies. Therefore, staff supports the proposed 

amendments and rezone and believes that the site is appropriate for housing. 

2. Are the potential noise and air quality impacts of I-80 adequately addressed? 

Noise and air quality impacts are summarized in the Environmental Review section below and 

are analyzed in detail in the Initial Study prepared for the project. Based on the analysis, staff 

believes that potential noise and air quality impacts have been adequately addressed and impacts 

have been reduced to a less than significant level for the proposed project. The project with 

mitigation is able to meet noise standards and comply with General Plan Noise policies. 

3. Is multi-family affordable housing appropriate on the site? 

Assuming that housing is appropriate at this location, is multi-family housing or affordable 

housing appropriate? If consideration is given to development of traditional low-density singlefamily 

housing or some type of attached medium density housing, the site makes less sense. 

While not incompatible with adjacent or zoned uses, a lower density housing development would 

appear isolated and cut off. It would not be as well connected to the existing neighborhood and 

would not be able to incorporate the greenbelt or provide as much access to it as well as a single 

larger development. Site development could be problematic and residences would probably be 

located closer to the highway than the proposed project and could also result in an undesirable 

sound wall. In addition, the higher density housing would be more consistent with the General 

Plan policy (UD 2.3a) for scaling the transition from higher intensity land uses to lower intensity 

land uses. Lower density housing would make less efficient use of the site and would be less 

consistent with the Infill Guidelines. Finally, there are already numerous locations in the city 

where existing single-family developments are being built out or alternative locations where 

additional single-family development is proposed or could be considered. 

There are few if any potential sites that could accommodate a high density multi-family 

development. There are no existing sites already zoned and designated where this project could 

be located. No other appropriate sites or feasible opportunities have been identified or found. The 

City has demonstrated a strong commitment to providing affordable housing that is reinforced in 

the General Plan policies. The city has an identified need for low and very low income housing 

and an obligation to meet its regional housing needs. 

Proposals for affordable housing typically generate a high level of concern. Two common 

worries about higher density and affordable housing are that they increase crime and decrease 

property values. However, information from the California Department of Housing and 

Community Development (HCD) indicates otherwise. An HCD report summarizing a May 2002 

roundtable on affordable housing and high density housing addressed these common concerns. It 

noted that “no study in California has ever shown that affordable housing developments reduce 

property values.” Pre-existing property values is a more important factor. Quality design and a 

well-maintained site can add neighborhood interest. The report also revealed that “the design and 

use of public spaces has a far more significant affect on crime than density or income levels.” 

Crime rates at higher density developments are not significantly higher than at lower density 

developments. Good on-site management and cooperation with neighbors and law enforcement 

goes a long way to preventing problems. 





The project also raises issues of environmental justice. The proposal would build low income 

housing on a site close to a highway where residents would be exposed to higher noise levels and 

an elevated health risk from vehicle emissions than a typical housing development. Although the 

site has many attributes in its favor, staff recognizes that the site is not an ideal location. 

However, these concerns have been analyzed in detail. They played a large role in the project 

design and the features that have been incorporated in order to develop a safe and healthy 

community. Additional mitigation measures were identified in the Initial Study and have been 

included as conditions. Staff believes that the noise and air quality issues have been adequately 

addressed. On balance staff believes that the site is appropriate for affordable housing and 

presents an opportunity to develop much-needed rental housing. 

4. Is there an over-concentration of affordable housing in the neighborhood? 

The final key issue is whether an over-concentration of affordable housing exists in the 

neighborhood or would be worsened by development of the project. The proposed New 

Harmony project would be located adjacent to the 45-unit Owendale Community and would be 

approximately one-third of a mile away from the 24-unit Rosewood Park Apartments, 12-unit 

Willow Glen Duplexes, and 21-unit Becerra Plaza (Figure 4). Neighbors have cited problems 

related to residents at Owendale and Rosewood Apartments. Willow Glen is senior affordable 

housing and Becerra Plaza serves disabled residents. 

Park 

Marguerite 

Montgomery 

Elementary 


Location 

Owendale 

Community 

BOULDER PL. 

MONTE VISTA PL. 

Rosewood 

Park Apts. 

Figure 4. Affordable Apartment Sites in Project Vicinity 

Park 

D 

Becerra 

Plaza 

Park 

Willow 

Glen Apts. 


N




When taken together, they do create a cluster of affordable housing, particularly for the houses 

located between them on Koso Way and Mono Place. However, there are 28 affordable 

apartment projects located throughout the City of Davis and are fairly well-dispersed (Figure 5). 

This does not include a number of apartment complexes in the city with a mix of affordable units 

and market-rate units. The clustering of these south Davis sites is partly due to similar locational 

factors such as proximity to shopping and services, access to parks and greenbelt, and arterial/ 

collector road locations. The proposed project does not increase the dispersion of affordable 

housing because it is adjacent to an existing affordable site. Yet this pairing of sites is not an 

unusual situation and occurs elsewhere in the city. In this case, it allows the two sites to share 

facilities and resources. 

The size of these apartment projects, based on the number of units, is also not an unusual 

amount. The middle-range size for an affordable apartment project is somewhere between 40 to 

70 units. The size of the existing sites in the neighborhood falls within the low to low-middle 

range. The proposed 69-unit New Harmony project would fall in the high-middle range. There 

are a number of affordable apartments with up to 100 or more units. 


Location 

Figure 5. Affordable Housing Site Locations in City 

All apartment projects have the potential to create issues for the surrounding neighborhood. The 

concerns are not limited to affordable apartments. Each type of apartment complex and each 

location is unique. Apartments dominated by students can lead to noise and parking problems. 

These issues are shared all over the city. Figure 6 shows the location of all apartment project 

city-wide. It shows areas of the city with a higher concentration of apartments than within the 

subject neighborhood. Figures 4, 5, and 6 are also included as Attachments 28, 29 and 30. 

Overall, staff does not believe there is an unusual concentration of affordable apartments or of 

apartments in general in the neighborhood of the project. 





Figure 6. Apartment Locations City-Wide 


Location 





ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

An Initial Study (Mitigated Negative Declaration) was prepared and has been circulated for 

public review from August 29, 2008 to September 17, 2008. The Initial Study analyzed the 

project and identified potential impacts relative to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Noise, and 

Transportation. The Initial Study determined that potential project impacts with mitigation would 

be less than significant (Attachment 18). 

The project design already incorporates measures that reduce potential impacts, particularly 

noise and air quality. They include maximizing the setback from the highway, site layout and 

building design to buffer active outdoor areas, and use of a vegetative buffer with redwood trees 

to reduce noise and filter pollutants. Mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce impacts to 

a less than significant level and have been included as conditions of approval. They include 

measures to mitigate: 

Air quality impacts and improve indoor air quality with indoor filters and low VOC 

materials. 

Burrowing owl impacts with preconstruction surveys. 

Construction noise by controlling the equipment, times, and location of earthwork. 

Highway noise on the proposed residential project and potential office development with 

setbacks, alternate ventilation, and enhanced windows for sound attenuation. 

Traffic and circulation impacts by addressing frontage improvements and sight distances. 

The potential air quality and noise impacts because of the project’s proximity to Interstate 

Highway 80 entailed the most discussion and analysis in the Initial Study. The site is located 

within 500 feet of the highway. It has been determined that people living within 500 feet of 

highways and other high traffic roadways have an elevated risk of exposure to cancer-causing 

pollutants and other general respiratory problems. Highway traffic noise can also be substantial 

and exceed normally acceptable thresholds. Measures to minimize and mitigate the highway 

impacts are applicable to both noise and air quality and have been incorporated. 

Air Quality Impact 

An Air Quality Analysis was prepared for the project and analyzed potential air quality impacts 

(Attachment 19). It determined that potential project-related emissions from operations and 

construction would be less than significant based on thresholds adopted by Yolo Solano Air 

Quality Management District (YSAQMD). However, exposure of residents to pollutants was a 

concern because of the highway proximity. The analysis included a Health Risk Assessment 

(HRA) to evaluate the potential cancer risk from toxic air contaminants (TACs) from mobile 

sources on residents. The Air Quality Analysis was reviewed by YSAQMD which determined 

that the analysis and methodology were adequate. 

The HRA calculated an additional cancer risk of 16 in one million for the project. The HRA is 

considered an informational document that is necessary to calculate and disclose the potential 

risk. YSAQMD has established a threshold of 10 in one million for exposure to TACs from 

stationary sources. However, the Air Quality District has no regulatory authority over mobile 

source emissions and there is no established threshold for impact significance. The City of Davis 

is considered the Lead Agency for this project and has the discretion to determine the impact 

significance. 





The California Air Resources Board (ARB) recommends avoiding the siting of sensitive land 

uses within 500 feet of freeways and high traffic roadways because of air quality concerns. 

However, the ARB specifically states that the recommendations are advisory and acknowledges 

that local agencies must balance other consideration, such as housing and transportation needs, 

economic development, and other quality of life issues. The City solicited additional independent 

analysis from Dr. Thomas Cahill, a local air quality expert. His analysis and understanding of 

local conditions indicated that the air quality at the project site would not be expected to be 

substantially worse than other locations in the city (Attachment 20). 

The analysis in the Initial Study discussed a number of assumptions and the local and regional air 

quality environment to provide a context for the HRA results. Considerations include: 

Project location on the upwind (south) side of highway; 

Conservative model assumptions based on a 70-year, 24-hour-a-day exposure period; 

Improving air quality from technological improvements and stricter emission standards; 

Regional air quality influences; and 

Relatively good local air quality. 

Based on these considerations, staff believes that exposure risks for the proposed project are less 

than significant with mitigation. Project design and mitigation measures for air quality also help 

to reduce highway noise impacts. The highway setback, berms, vegetative buffers, and shielding 

of outdoor areas with structures reduce exterior noise levels to acceptable levels. Incorporation 

alternative ventilation and higher quality windows addresses indoor noise levels. The Acoustical 

Analysis is included as Attachment 21. The project also incorporates by reference applicable 

measures of the South Davis Specific Plan EIR and General Plan EIR which evaluated overall 

buildout of the city and the plan area. 

Final EIR for the South Davis Specific Plan 

On July 15, 1987 the City Council adopted the South Davis Specific Plan (SDSP) and 

subsequent revisions. The SDSP established land uses for approximately 826 acres in South 

Davis area south of Interstate 80. At that time the City Council certified an Environmental 

Impact Reports for the plan. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts 

and a statement of overriding considerations for significant unavoidable impacts relative to the 

loss of agricultural lands, loss of natural resources, and traffic congestion (Resolution No. 5796 

July 15, 1987 certifying the Final EIR for the South Davis General Plan Amendments and 

Specific Plan). 

Program EIR prepared for General Plan Update 

The potential environmental impacts of development of the subject property were analyzed as 

part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City’s 2001 General Plan Update 

and are incorporated here by reference. The EIR evaluated the overall buildout of the City under 

the General Plan to the year 2010. The policies, measures, and land uses from the South Davis 

Specific Plan were incorporated as part of the General Plan. The action to approve the General 

Plan adopted a statement of overriding considerations for significant unavoidable impacts in the 

areas of traffic and impacts on roadway systems, air quality, and noise among others (Resolution 

No. 01-72 May 23, 2001 certifying the General Plan Update Final EIR and approving the 

General Plan, Exhibit B – Statement of Overriding Considerations). 





PUBLIC OUTREACH & COMMENTS 

On-going public outreach and noticing of the project has occurred prior to and during City 

review of the project. It included several informational notices mailed out to the neighborhood 

and three neighborhood meetings. Notice of the public hearings and the comment period for the 

Initial Study exceeded City requirements. In an enhanced mailout, notices were sent to 

properties within 1,000 feet of the project site and beyond and were published in the Davis 

Enterprise. Outreach in the neighborhood has included the following: 

11/15/06 Neighborhood Meeting about the potential project 

07/09/07 Update Letter to Neighborhood 

05/12/08 Neighborhood Notice of Project Application 

06/18/08 Neighborhood Open House and Notice 

08/26/08 Neighborhood Meeting and Notice 

08/26/08 Initial Study Comment Period Notice 

09/10/08 Planning Commission Hearing and Notice 

Neighborhood Meetings 

A neighborhood meeting was first held in November 15, 2006 to identify potential concerns 

about use of the site for affordable housing. Approximately 14 people attended (Attachment 22). 

Neighbors raised general concerns related to the housing density, issues with affordable housing 

and the change in use, impacts to traffic, parking, and schools, and potential economic impacts. 

The City’s loan agreement for the project included requirements to consider and analyze these 

issues. Measures have been incorporated in the project or as conditions of approval addressing 

these issues or are discussed in this staff report. 

The City held an open house on June 18, 2008 after the project had been submitted to inform the 

neighborhood and to identify concerns and questions again. City Planning, Housing, and Police 

staff were available along with project representatives. Approximately 20 people participated 

(Attachment 23). Similar concerns were raised about neighborhood impacts, the number of 

affordable housing sites, and highway impacts. There were also comments about criminal 

activity in the neighborhood and questions about Owendale management policies. 

A follow-up meeting was held on August 26, 2008 to update the neighborhood on the project and 

respond to questions raised. Approximately 14 people attended (Attachment 24). A handout was 

provided summarizing information responding to the questions (Attachment 25). On-site and 

City contact information was provided. Although there was some acknowledgment from the 

residents about the need for affordable housing, the overwhelming sentiment expressed was 

opposition to the project, largely due to a perceived over-concentration of affordable housing 

sites in the neighborhood and related negative impacts. Mixed in to it was also some opposition 

to an apartment project, to the proposed density, and to residential in general. 

Public Comments 

Comments received during the project review process and at neighborhood meetings are 

summarized and briefly discussed below. Comments are included as Attachment 26. 

School Impacts. Concerns were expressed that the additional housing would impact the 





local schools. The school district has reviewed the project and no significant issues were 

identified. Because of limited capacity at nearby schools, students may be served by other 

schools. The project is subject to required developer fees. 

Traffic Impacts. Concerns were expressed about increased congestion and traffic in the 

neighborhood. The project will generate additional traffic on local roads. However, the 

traffic study prepared for the project determined that traffic impacts from the project 

would be less than significant. Local intersections and roadways would continue to 

operate at acceptable levels based on City standards. The Public Works Department 

which has reviewed the project concurs with the conclusions of the traffic study and has 

not identified any substantial traffic concerns. The project is subject to required traffic 

impact fees. In addition, the City is currently preparing plans to construct a roundabout 

adjacent to the project site at the intersection of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond 

Avenue/Chiles Road. The improvement has been planned for some time and is not 

directly related to the project, but is expected to improve improve circulation at the 

intersection by replacing the four-way stop. The South Davis Specific Plan facilities plan 

envisioned a traffic signal control at buildout. Subsequent analysis showed that a 

roundabout would be a superior alternative to a traffic signal or a four-way stop 

controlled intersection. 

Parking Impacts. Concerns were expressed about insufficient parking on-site and 

potential spill-over effects. City parking standards require 121 parking spaces for the 69 

apartment units. The project proposes 122 parking spaces and meets parking standards. 

Five of these spaces will be held in reserve with the area and used for the basketball halfcourt. 

Affordable housing sites typically have lower than average vehicle ownership 

rates. The adjacent Owendale site currently has excess parking. In addition, the site which 

is located adjacent to proposed the bicycle path and along bus routes providing 

alternatives to motor vehicle usage. Staff has recommended a condition of approval for a 

parking plan in order to ensure reasonably convenient parking for each unit and to help 

monitor parking. 

Over-Concentration of Affordable Sites. Concerns were expressed that there was an overconcentration 

of affordable housing sites in the neighborhood. There were concerns that 

more apartments would have a negative impact on the neighborhood character and on 

property values. There were also questions about the actual need and who the residents 

would be. The 69-unit New Harmony project would be adjacent to the 45-unit Owendale 

Community. Other affordable apartments in the area include Rosewood Apartments (24 

units), Willow Glen (12 units), and Becerra Plaza (21 units). Putting all of these together 

does create cluster of housing. However, there are 28 affordable housing communities 

dispersed throughout the city plus additional apartment complexes that have affordable 

units within their mix. 

Neighborhood Crime. Concerns were expressed about existing crime in the neighborhood 

and increased criminal activity because of the project. Several neighbors have cited 

general disturbances and specific criminal incidents that have occurred in the 

neighborhood and attributed them to residents at the Owendale Apartments. According 

to the Davis Police Department, there have been past problems in the neighborhood 





associated with the Owendale Apartments. The situation has improved as a result of 

increased attention by the Police Department and new apartment management. In 

addition, residents who violate apartment policies can be and have been evicted. 

According to the Police Department, there have been no problems and no police calls on 

record since the management switch. Unfortunately, the perception of a problem can 

linger and it will take time for changes to be felt in the area even though improvements 

have been made. Concerns that the New Harmony project will add to the problem are 

speculative. SMHA has an obligation and strong interest in protecting the welfare and 

safety of its residents and the neighborhood. Specific measures that have been or could 

be taken include: 

- Owendale is part of the Crime Free Program run by the Police Department. It 

includes training opportunities for the on-site management and an inspection of 

the site to identify problem areas. Davis Police will also sponsor a resident social 

where a police officer will inform residents about crime prevention. 

- SMHA has helped to organize Neighborhood Watch programs at other sites and 

can help organize one with Owendale and New Harmony if neighbors are 

interested. 

- SMHA has also asked the management company of Owendale to implement a 

comprehensive policy to address domestic violence and reduce potential 

problems. As part of the policy, incidents would be reported to appropriate 

authorities and recurring incidents could result in eviction. 

Impact on City Services. There was a concern that the project would result in the need for 

additional City Services, particularly police protection. The Police Department reviewed 

the project and did not identify any particular concerns. They did confirm past problems 

with the adjacent Owendale Apartments which received additional attention and 

resources. As a result there has been a marked improvement in the past year. Some of the 

improvement is attributed to new management of the site and improved communication. 

The applicant has committed to continuing these efforts and has provided contact 

information to neighbors in order to address problems early on. The project is also 

conditioned to participate in the Crime Free Program and to host neighborhood watch 

meetings. 

Property Values and Land Use Expectations. There were comments that the project 

would have a negative effect on property values and that there were expectations that the 

site would be developed for commercial uses. 

Economic Impacts. There were comments that the project would have a negative 

economic impact on the City because of the need for increased services and subsidies and 

the loss of commercial land for housing. Because the project proposes to develop a 

vacant site, there would be an incremental increase in the need for city services, but 

development of the site with a different project would also increase the need for services. 

Many services can be provided more efficiently to this type of project with its compact 

design and higher density. While the loss of commercial land in the city is a concern, the 

subject site is considered marginal for commercial use and the provision of affordable 

housing is also an important City goal. 





Inappropriate Site. There were comments that felt the site was inappropriate for the 

project based on density, highway impacts, and the character of the area. The increased 

density is necessary to accommodate a feasible project. The site is adjacent to a greenbelt 

and convenient to shopping and services. It is not adjacent to any single-family 

residential sites. It is situated on arterial and collector roadways. Noise and air quality 

health impacts related to the highway are addressed in the Initial Study and have been 

mitigated through project design and recommended mitigation measures. There was a 

comment that the proposed three-story buildings are too tall and inappropriate for a 

“rural” area of Davis. The buildings would be consistent with the standards of the Multi- 

Family District with the minor modification for the height. The site is within the 

urbanized area and three-story apartment buildings are not uncommon in other parts of 

the city or in other residential areas. The adjacent Owendale site contains buildings that 

are three stories in height and 32 feet tall. They are about 10 feet lower than highest 

portions of the New Harmony buildings which vary in height from about 34 feet to 41 

feet 6 inches to break up the rooflines and allow for sloped roofs, accommodate generous 

ceiling heights, and provide visual interest. The specific standards are reviewed as part of 

the Final Planned Development and Design Review. 

Management Policies. There were questions related to general management policies. 

Policies include background checks on residents of all SMHA properties and would 

include the New Harmony project, participation in efforts to improve resident and 

neighborhood safety, eviction for non-payment, drug-use, serious breaches of rules, or 

continued distruptive behavior, and a policy addressing domestic violence. A response to 

questions with more detailed information was provided to neighbors and is included as 

Attachment 25. 

Resident Selection. There were questions about the need for low-income housing and 

concern about residents from outside the community. The city has an identified need for 

this type of low-income rental housing based on existing waiting lists. While prospective 

residents cannot be discriminated against based on where they may live or work, the 

intent of the project is to provide for local needs and for those already affiliated with the 

community. Advertising of the site focuses on UCD, local employers, and local sources 

of information. To use the Owendale Apartments as an example, 58% of the residents 

were originally from Davis and most common places of employment are Davis, 

Sacramento, Woodland, or Dixon. 

Owendale. There were comments and questions about the Owendale Apartments. There 

was a general impression that the youth at Owendale don’t have things to do and end up 

“hanging out” in the neighborhood and causing problems. The neighbors had concerns 

about clutter on the Owendale patios and maintenance of landscaping. The Owendale 

management has been taking steps to address these issues. It highlights the importance of 

communication with the neighborhood in order to identify these types of issues. The 

concerns are not directly related to the project, but they indicate the level of concern. 

SMHA/YMHA operate programs to support and educate their residents. The New 

Harmony project also incorporates a substantial amount of useable open space for its 

residents as play areas, gardens, and for recreation. 





PROJECT DETAILS & ANALYSIS 

Tentative Map 

The project includes a tentative map to create a 3.38-acre residential parcel on the south side of 

Cowell Boulevard that would be designated and zoned for multi-family uses consistent with the 

project. The designated remainder parcel on the north side of Cowell would be a 1.16-acre site 

that would keep its current business park/industrial research designation and zoning that would 

allow office-type uses among other things. See Tentative Map Exhibit in Project Plans included 

as Attachment 31. No development is currently proposed on it and there are a number of existing 

challenges for potential office development on the site. They include the small size and 

triangular shape of the lot, its close proximity to the freeway, and existing easements and utility 

poles. However, these are existing conditions and the proposed project would not impact 

potential development of the site. The tentative map has been reviewed by applicable agencies 

and no significant issues have been identified. Additional maps and/or an improvement 

agreement for public improvements may be required prior to development of the remainder 

parcel. 

Final Planned Development 

A Final Planned Development is required for the project and addresses basic site planning and 

design, the relationship of the buildings, landscaping, parking, and other site improvements. It 

includes Final Planned Development standards specific to the proposal summarized in Table 4 

below. The project complies with the PD 12-87 development standards for the proposed Multi- 

Family District zoning, which are provided for reference. Applicable standards not specified in 

PD 12-87 are taken from the Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 40). 

Setbacks 

(Entire Site) 

Maximum 


Table 4. 

Final Planned Development Standards 

PD 12-87 Multi-Family/ 

Zoning Standards 

Per Final 

Planned 

Development 

3 stories/38 feet 

Proposed 

Final PD Standards 

Front (Cowell Blvd.): 99 feet 

Rear (South) 

Building C: 15 feet 

Community Bldg: 10 feet* 

Street Side 

(Drummond Ave.): 16 feet 

Side (West): 62 feet 

3 stories/41’-9” feet 

(with minor modification) 





Accessory 


Off-Street 

Parking Spaces 

2 stories/25 feet 1 story/22 feet 

121 spaces 

Parking Lot Shading 50% minimum 

Bicycle Parking 

As Determined 

by CDD Director 

Lot Coverage N/A 

Open Space/ 

Landscaping** 

N/A 

Landscape Area N/A 

122 spaces 

(includes 5 reserve spaces) 

56% 

(22,526 sq. ft.) 

140 spaces 

(55 covered, 

85 uncovered) 

23% 

(33,962 sq. ft.) 

48% 

(70,709 sq. ft.**) 

30% 

(44,950 sq. ft.) 

*An open trellis attached to the community building may encroach wiithin 5 feet of the rear property line. 

**Open Space/Landscaping includes all concrete flatwork, paths, planters, play areas which are all areas not 

included in building and asphalt/parking calculations. 

Staff believes the Final Planned Development standards are appropriate for the project and site. 

It maximizes the north setback to mitigate highway impacts. As a result, the south setback is 

reduced, but the project will be buffered by the adjacent greenbelt and will incorporate open steel 

fencing to maintain a sense of openness. The Drummond Avenue setback from Building “C” is 

consistent with the Owendale Apartments. It presents a very narrow elevation to the street and 

adds some street presence. The project provides adequate vehicle parking, a generous amount 

of useable area as open space/play areas, and incorporates substantial landscaping within the 

project site and on the periphery. There will be two bicycle parking spaces per unit as 

recommended in the City Bike Plan. Spaces are dispersed throughout the site and covered spaces 

have been incorporated. 

Minor Modification 

The project includes a Minor Modification to allow a minor increase in the height of the project 

41 feet 9 inches. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the increase would be no more than ten 

percent. The additional height would be for several tower elements incorporated in the building 

design to break up the building and roofline and allow for sloped roofs, accommodate generous 

ceiling heights, and to provide visual relief. Staff believes additional height is non-substantive 

and appropriate for the project and that the findings can be made to support the Minor 

Modification. 





Design Review 

Staff believes the site layout and building design are appropriate for the site and well-thought 

out, innovative and attractive in design, and compatible with the neighborhood. 

Site Layout 

The site design was driven by three main goals, which were: to address noise and air quality 

impacts from the highway; maximize open space; and incorporate sustainability measures. 

Consequently, the buildings are pushed back from the highway as much as possible. Building 

“B” forms a gentle crescent across the length of the site. Although the building is broken up into 

different sections, it is connected with breezeways to create a single structure and to act as a 

noise barrier to the open space areas behind it. The highway setback and building barrier were 

recommended in the Acoustical Analysis prepared for the project and in general HUD 

recommendations for building orientations. 

The shared open space nestled between the buildings is the heart of the site and encourages 

interaction. It will contain various outdoor uses including a formal children’s play area with 

equipment, open grassy areas, and informal play areas, a community garden, paths, picnic tables, 

benches,and the community building. The community building would be centrally located so that 

it would be convenient to the residents, but also allow management to monitor activity. A halfcourt 

basketball play area would be located in a parking reserve area on the west side and at a 

respectful distance from any residences. Open steel fencing along the greenbelt provides 

security, but maintains a sense of openness. The project site will have direct access to the 

greenbelt. Project plans are included as Attachment 31. 

Project Sustainability 

The project is conditioned to comply with the City’s recently adopted Green Building Ordinance 

which establishes point thresholds based on green building measures that are incorporated into a 

project. The threshold for new multi-family residential development is 70 points under the Build 

It Green Multi-Family Guidelines and Checklist. The applicant expects to exceed the threshold 

by a substantial amount and achieve approximately 102 points. The original project concept 

included a desire to achieve a high level of sustainability for the project. The project has 

incorporated site selection considerations and committed to building design features that include, 

among other measures: 

Access to bicycle paths, transit, and nearby shopping; 

Orientation of the buildings and units to maximize daylight and for passive solar design; 

Minimizing parking and pavement; 

Maximizing landscaping, open space; 

Community garden and fruit trees; 

Project stormwater BMP’s including bioswales and raingardens; 

Shading for windows, parking areas, and outdoor spaces, and covered bicycle parking; 

Use of low VOC materials to improve air quality and ceiling fans; 

Exceed Title 24 by a minimum of 15% for enhanced energy efficiencies; and 

Installation of a photovoltaic system to power communal areas. 





Parking 

The project site would have access from two driveways on Cowell Boulevard. While driveway 

access to Drummond Avenue would have provided for better circualation, obstructions from a 

median and utility poles and proximity to the intersection prevented the driveway. Additionally, 

an early neighborhood comment had requested no access to Drummond Avenue. 

The site design places parking along the front and sides of the project. It provides the buffer area 

from the highway and puts it on the edge of the site so it does not intrude on the living and 

outdoor areas. The parking area is softened with trees and landscaping that provides 56% 

shading and meet the City’s parking lot shading standard of 50%. A generous 25-foot landscape 

strip containing landscaping, berms, and bioswales along the street frontages will help to screen 

the parking area. Because residents of Building “C” would be farthest from the parking area, a 

condition of approval has been incorporated for the applicant to develop a parking plan with 

assigned spaces convenient to the units. 

122 parking spaces including 5 reserve spaces will be provided for the 69 units and meets City 

parking standards. Although parking is not available adjacent to the site on Cowell Boulevard or 

Drummond Avenue, staff believes the proposed parking is adequate. Vehicle ownership for 

residents of affordable apartments tends to be lower than average. For example, residents of the 

adjacent Owendale Apartments do not fully utilize all of their available on-site parking. In 

addition, residents of the New Harmony project would have convenient access to public transit 

and bicycle paths. 

Landscaping 

The project proposes generous amount of area for landscaping and open space, approximately 

48% of the site. The diverse mix of landscaping material is appropriate for the site and purpose. 

It includes shrubs and dense evergreen trees for screening and buffering along Cowell 

Boulevard, grasses and shrubs in bioswales, large shade trees in the parking lot and active 

outdoor areas, smaller decorative trees for accent, and fruit trees in the community area (Figure 

7). At the corner of the property adjacent to the new traffic circle, the landscape area is about 60 

feet wide and will include a separated sidewalk at the corner. 

The proposed landscaping and shading plan have been reviewed by the City Arborist. The 

project complies with all applicable requirements. All proposed landscaping shall be in 

compliance with the City’s Water Conservation standards for new construction and is subject to 

review of a final landscape plan. The applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of 

frontage landscaping from the back of the curb to the property line. Staff believes the proposed 

landscaping is attractive and appropriate. 

Greenbelt Improvements 

The project will complete improvements on the adjacent greenbelt area. The greenbelt property 

was offered for dedication as part of the Rosecreek 8 project. The Oakshade Development 

Agreement provided that the greenbelt design and improvement be phased for improvement at 

the same time as the adjoining subdivision improvements. However, the greenbelt improvements 

were deferred because of uncertainty over when the bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing 

improvements could be done. A Letter of Credit covered improvements but expired. Oakshade 

Development still owns the property and details of the property transfer are being worked out. 





Figure 7. Preliminary Landscape Plan 

Building Design 

The proposed three-story apartment buildings make efficient use of the site and accomplish City 

and developer goals to create attractive, affordable housing, provide a sufficient number of units, 

accommodate for accessibility, and address site issues. The contemporary design includes a mix 

of forms, shapes, materials, and colors to create visual interest. Because Building “B” functions 

partly as a noise barrier, it creates a long elevation that faces Cowell Boulevard. The length of 

the building does not necessarily detract from the area as it lends more street presence. The 

setback from the street, the landscaping along the frontage, and the gentle curve of the building 

will soften the effect. Additionally, the design of the building breaks up the massing into smaller 

pieces and adds variety that includes (Figure 8): 

A mix of roof forms and angles with flat and shallow-pitched roofs; 

Different exterior materials and textures, stucco and hardiplank siding; 

Recesses and pop-outs in the building for added depth; 

Different vertical and horizontal elements to break up the lines; 

Awings and overhangs for shadowing; 

A varied color palette composed of subdued tans, browns, greys with hints of yellow and 

red; 

The apartment buildings both have elevator access and stairs. A covered breezeway along all 

three floors provides access to the units. The units run across the width of the building. The units 


N




have their common living areas and a private patio/balcony on the south-facing sides towards the 

open space and greenbelt. 

The community building serves as a communal gathering area and meeting space and provides 

offices, training space, and storage space. Each unit will have laundry hook-ups, but communal 

laundry facilities will be available in the community building. It will also have a kitchen and 

computer room. Staff believes the design of the apartment and community buildings are 

attractive and appropriate. Color elevations and conceptual views are included as Attachments 32 

and 33. 

Figure 8. North Elevation View of Building “B” from Cowell Blvd. 

Visitability/Accessibility 

Provision of visitable and accessible features in new residential developments is a City objective. 

For affordable housing projects that are developed using city-awarded affordable housing funds 

and/or land, the City has typically required increased accessibility. While the City has focused on 

the provision of accessible and visitable units in single-family (ownership housing) due to the 

lack of building code requirements for that housing type, this applicant has worked with the City 

to make every unit in the proposed project visitable with the ability to adapt all units to be fully 

accessible. At the City’s direction, the project was designed as stacked-flat apartments in part to 

provide full project accessibility. Other possible designs that might have included two-story 

townhome-style apartments similar to Owendale, the existing affordable housing project to the 

south, would not have allowed for this level of accessibility. The applicant has committed to 

providing full visitability for all of the units and to build in features for complete accessibility for 

a minimum of 20% of units. This has been included as a condition of approval. Additional units 

could be built out as accessible units based on resident needs, once tenants have moved in and/or 

as the need arises during their tenancy at the project. This project would be the first non-senior 

fully accessible affordable rental housing in Davis. 

Batched General Plan Amendments 

Specific policy issues related to the proposed General Plan Amendment for this project are 

discussed above. However, if approved the resolution amending the general plan includes 

changes to the Land Use Map from previously approved projects. State Planning and Zoning 

Laws state that no mandatory element of the general plan shall be amended more frequently than 

four times per any calendar year, but that each amendment may include more than one change 

(Government Code Section 65358(b). For this calendar year to date, one amendment to the 





general plan has occurred. The proposed resolution to amend the General Plan attached to this 

staff report includes changes from other approved projects that are necessary to ensure 

consistency. 

Resolutions of intent to amend the General Plan for the Sweetbriar Block and the Korean Church 

project were adopted by the City Council on January 9, 2007 and March 18, 2008, respectively 

(Attachments 14 and 15). The Sweetbriar amendment made corrections to the Core Area 

Specific Plan Land Use Map which was incorporated in the General Plan by reference for the 

block bounded by Sweetbriar Drive, 8 th Street, G Street, and H Street. The Korean Church 

project amended changed the land use designation for the property at 555 and 603 L Street from 

“General Commercial” and “Residential Low-Density” to “Public/Semi-Public.” The reference 

to these two projects in the resolution is a procedural matter and does not affect the proposed 

New Harmony project. 

CONCLUSION 

Staff believes that the proposed amendments and rezone would be consistent with the General 

Plan policies and implement City priorities. The design of the project is suitable for the site and 

compatible with the neighborhood. Staff believes that the proposed project, with the 

recommended conditions and mitigation, adequately address concerns. The Planning 

Commission may decide that certain issues require additional consideration. The City has the 

discretion to deny or require modifications to the project. Should they determine it necessary, the 

Planning Commission may choose to recommend that additional conditions or changes be 

required. Staff recommends approval based on the findings (Attachment 1) and subject to the 

conditions of approval (Attachment 2). 





ATTACHMENTS 

Findings & Conditions 

1. Findings 

2. Conditions of Approval 

3. Resolution Amending the General Plan Land Use Designation 

4. Resolution Amending the South Davis Specific Plan 

5. Ordinance Amending PD 12-87 of the Chapter 40 of the Municipal Code 

Project Background & Information 

6. Applicant Project Description 

7. Commercial Feasibility Study pages for the Lillard Parcel 

8. Oakshade Dedication Site Proposal 

9. Resolution Authorizing a Loan Agreement to Purchase the Lillard Parcel 

10. Resolution Awarding the Oakshade Land Dedication Site 

11. Housing Steering Committee Ranking for the Site 

12. PD 12-87 Zoning – Multi-Family and Industrial Research Districts 

13. Ordinance 2024 Amending PD 12-87 to Add Multi-Family as a Conditional Use 

14. Resolution (07-003) of Intent to Amend the General Plan for the Sweetbriar Amendment 

15. Resolution (08-038) of Intent to Amend the General Plan for the Korean Church Project 

Policy Analysis, CEQA & Technical Reports 

16. General Plan Goals and Policies Compliance Table 

17. Infill Guidelines Compliance Table 

18. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 

19. Air Quality Analysis by LSA Associates dated June 2008 

20. Air Quality Analysis by T. Cahill dated August 6 & 24, 2008 

21. Acoustical Analysis & Memo by LSA Associates dated December 2007 

Neighborhood Meeting & Public Comments 

22. November 15, 2006 Neighborhood Meeting Attendance Sheet, 

23. June 18, 2008 Neighborhood Open House Attendance Sheet and Comments 

24. August 26, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting Attendance Sheet and Comments 

25. Information Handout in Response to Questions and Concerns 

26. Public Comments & Correspondence 

Maps 

27. Vicinity Map 

28. Apartment Sites City-Wide Map 

29. Affordable Apartment Sites City-Wide Map 

30. Affordable Housing Sites in Neighborhood Vicinity 

Project Plans & Maps 

31. Project Plans 

32. Color Elevations 

33. Conceptual Views 

34. Aerial Views 


ATTACHMENTS 1-18 

Planning Commission Staff Report 

In order to save paper, these attachments have not been included or 

are already included in the City Council staff report attachments, 

and are also available upon request. 

Copies are available to view at: 


located at 23 Russell Blvd., Davis 

For Questions Please Contact: 


(530) 757-5610 

elee@cityofdavis.org 
























10/07/2008 City Council Meeting 06 - 206







UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 

ATTACHMENT 20 

DELTA GROUP, WALKER HALL ROOM 105 

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND MATERIALS SCIENCE/ APPLIED SCIENCE / 

PHYSICS/ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES/ (530) 752-1120; ( 530) 752-4674 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS (530) 752-9804 FAX 

ONE SHIELDS AVENUE tacahill@ucdavis.edu 

DAVIS, CA 95616 

August 24, 2008 

To: Eric Lee, Planner 

City of Davis 

From: Thomas A. Cahill, Professor 

Physics and Atmospheric Sciences 

Re: New Horizons 

I have been asked by City of Davis to provide an independent overview of the sensitivity 

of the New Horizons Project to the impact on Interstate 80. 

I have a long background in near roadway impact studies for the ARB (Los Angeles lead 

studies, 1972-1974), US EPA General Motors study (1978), and programs with Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD and the American Lung Association (ALA) and Breathe California of 

Sacramento Emigrant Trails (BC/SET) Watt Avenue studies, 2001 – 2008. I organized a US 

EPA Near Roadway impact meeting Davis, January, 2008, gave an invited talk the Air and 

Waste Management (AWMA) meeting in Portland on near roadway impacts, June, 2008. I am a 

co-author on an upcoming near roadway paper with the US EPA in AWMA’s Environmental 

Manager (fall, 2008). My CV with over 300 papers and reports is available for examination on 

my DELTA Group web site http://delta.ucdavis.edu along with some of the recent studies. 

My analysis is that New Horizons is not heavily impacted by I-80 based on: 

1. distance of the New Horizons proposal from the nearest active traffic lane, 

2. favorable alignment with prevailing winds that makes the proposed project upwind of I- 

80 in the prevailing spring, summer, and early fall wind patterns, 

a. The major impact of I-80 is predicted in winter stagnation periods when New 

Horizons is often downwind in weak, northerly winds and a strong inversion. 

3. Comparison with measured and modeled impacts near I-80 including a short study in 

summer, 1987, and the extensive American Lung Association (ALA) - Breathe California 

of Sacramento Emigrant Trails (BC/SET) study of December and January, 2001 - 2002. 

a. The summer tests showed an impact at the freeway edge of roughly 1.5 g/m 3 of 

PM2.5 mass (EPA annual average PM2.5 limit, 15 g/m 3 , newly lowered 24 hr 

PM2.5 limit, 35 g/m 3 .). No fall off transects were made, so the downwind impact 


ATTACHMENT 20 

at the closest proposed New Horizons residence is modeled by Emfac2007 (see 

Appendix A) to be (0.4 x 1.5 g/m 3 = 0.6 g/m 3 ) 

b. The winter tests of December, 2001 – January, 2002 were made 150 ft south of 

Chiles road (180 ft south of right-of-way fence) just east of the USFS nursery, 

which showed essentially no difference ( < 1 g/m 3 ) between the near I-80 site 

from aerosols taken either west of Davis or near the Sacramento River upwind of 

I-5 in 128 mass measurements made day and night in 16 24 hr periods of heavy 

haze and strong winter inversions. (Note; For comparison, that the same study in 

the same periods showed an enhancement of 14 g/m 3 300 ft directly downwind 

of I-5 in Sacramento on top of a 13 g/m 3 valley-wide pollution blanket rich in 

automotive, diesel, and wood smoke). 

My analysis shows that these residual impacts can be further mitigated by the methods 

developed in our recent studies along Watt Avenue, which include: 

1. enhancements of sound, visual, and pollution barriers on the –I-90 right of way, similar to 

those that exist either in Fairfield in the Pleasant Valley subdivision just east of Fairfield 

and south of I-80, and on I-5 south of the W-X (Hwy 50) interchange (see photo in 

Appendix A), 

2. enhancement of vegetative barriers on the property, favoring non-deciduous trees that 

have been tested and shown to absorb diesel exhaust in out recent (May, 2008) study for 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD and BC/SET, (see Appendix A) and 

3. Improved air filtration within the dwellings, involving both inputs of outside air and 

recirculation within the units. 


Appendix A 

ATTACHMENT 20 

Note that the data from Los Angeles are systematically enhanced by the prevailing 

oceanic inversion which traps highway pollutants close to the ground. Emfac2007 is the latest 

and EPA approved model. These data do not include the dramatic reduction possible with 

barriers and vegetation from out wind tunnel vegetation studies (5/2008) below. 

Removal of very fine particles in redwood vegetation 

HETF/UC Davis Tunnel Studies 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 

Wind velocity m/s (for mph, x 2.1) 


ATTACHMENT 20 

This is an example of an excellent pollution barrier on I-5 south of Sutterville road. The 

effect would be greatly enhanced if there were similar vegetation in the median strip. However, 

even the oleander hedge the I-80 median strip north of the proposed New Horizons helps. 


Davis New Harmony Project 

Draft Informal analysis by Thomas A. Cahill 

August 6, 2008 

1. Summary and authorities 

ATTACHMENT 20 

In summary, while the location of the project is such that it lies upwind of 

Interstate 80 in most prevailing wind conditions, some residual impact can occur, 

especially in periods of winter stagnation. I propose that these can be mitigated by 

1. Potential discussions with CalTrans on revised plantings and sound wall 

configurations within the right of way, 

2. Enhanced vegetation on the north edge of the parking lot, with deodar and 

redwoods as a preferred type of trees due to their ability to filter out ultra fine 

diesel particulates, 

3. Enhanced filtration within the dwellings using passive electrostatic filters and 

low face velocities to remove residual free way aerosols. 

For my credentials, see my web site http://delta.ucdavis.edu. 

We also have had a series of reports on Davis and Sacramento since 1995: 

PM-10 Aerosols in Davis from Traffic Sources, 

Final report to the City of Davis Council, March 15, 1995, 

Thomas A. Cahill, Elizabeth A. Gearhart, and K.T. Paw-U 

Comparison of Cardiac and Stroke Mortality to Carbon Monoxide, 

Ozone, and Particulate Air Pollutant Concentrations in the 

Sacramento Region. 

Final Report to the American Lung Association of Sacramento Emigrant 

Trails, June, 1998 

Thomas A. Cahill, Debrina Dutcher, Chris Clark, Jeanette Martin, 

Theresa McCarthy, and David Lipnick. 

Sacramento/Interstate-5 Aerosol Transect Study 


Trails, 2003 

Principle Investigator: Thomas A. Cahill. Investigators: M. Roumie, Lee 

Portnoff, Victor Ray, Jeanette Martin, Roger Miller, Steven Cliff, Kevin D. 

Perry, the staff of DELTA group University of California Davis, Chinyere 

Williams, volunteers of the American Lung Association of Sacramento 

Emigrant Trails Health Effects Task Force. 

Sacramento/Interstate-5 Aerosol Transect Study 


Trails, 2005 

Principle Investigator: Thomas A. Cahill. Investigators: Lee Portnoff, 

Steven Cliff, Kevin D. Perry, the staff of DELTA Group University of 


California Davis, volunteers of the American Lung Association of 

Sacramento Emigrant Trails Health Effect Task Force. 

ATTACHMENT 20 

Removal Rates of Particulate Matter onto Vegetation 

as a Function of Particle Size 

Final Report to Breathe California of Sacramento Emigrant Trails Health 

Effects Task Force (HETF) and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, 

February 24, 2008 

Erin Fujii, Jonathan Lawton, Thomas A. Cahill, David E. Barnes, Chui 

Hayes (IASTE intern), Nick Spada, and Greg McPherson The DELTA 

Group, http://delta.ucdavis.edu, and the Pacific Southwest USFS Urban 

Forest Program, Univ. of California, Davis 95616 

2. Point of analysis #1 

The New Harmony project lies south of Highway 80, which is in a low 

probability wind rose patter for highway influence (see local wind rose Yolo Airport? If 

not, Sacramento). 

a. Summer winds are predominantly from the southwest, and thus the New 

Harmony project is upwind of the freeway and has essentially no freeway 

influence. 

b. New Harmony is south of I-80 and would be influenced by winds from the 

north, northwest and northeast. North and northwest winds tend to be 

stronger, diluting highway influence. 

c. Winter stagnation periods are the greatest threat of I-80 influence, but two 

studies indicate that this is not a problem. 

3. Point of analysis #2 

The next piece of evidence came as part of my class work (Atmospheric Science 

124). My students and I made a transect across Davis on a cold, hazy day just before 

Christmas on Friday, Dec 22-23, 1993, a day predicted to have the worst local impact 

from pre-Christmas shopping and fireplaces on Friday evening. This was included in a 

report to the City Council on March 15, 1995, “PM-10 Aerosols in Davis from Traffic 

Sources”, dated March 2, 1995, T. A. Cahill, E. A. Gearhart, and K.T. Paw U, from the 

Air Quality Group and Department of Atmospheric Sciences, UC Davis. This packet also 

included a reviewer list and an analysis letter on the soundness of the work to the city 

from the Yolo Solano AQMD. 

Table 1 Transect across Davis, December 22 23, 1994 (From Tables 1 and 2, Cahill et 

al, 1995) Green = normally upwind; Blue = City of Davis 

Site PM10 

( g/m 3 ) 

West of 

113 

PM2.5 

( g/m 3 ) 

PM2.5 Knon 

(wood 

PM2.5 

Soot 

PM2.5 

ammonium 

PM2.5 

Organic 

PM2.5 

soil 

smoke) (babs) sulfate mass 

44.4 39.7 0.11 4.0 2.63 19.86 0.91 


UCD west 

field 

Central 

Park 

Police 3 rd 

and F St 

Chestnut 

Park 

ATTACHMENT 20 

50.8 40.7 0.11 4.4 3.17 18.24 1.14 

46.2 41.5 0.18 5.0 3.26 22.82 1.32 

45.2 40.2 0.11 4.9 3.18 22.06 1.35 

45.3 40.6 0.04 4.4 3.45 22.95 1.52 

The first point to note is that the measurements of mass, upon which the state and 

federal AQI are based, are essentially the same at upwind sites west of town (the average 

of West of 113 and UCD west fields sites) as in town (average of other three sites). 

Note that the wind blew from the town to the west sites only 4% of all hours in 

December. 

The point for the New harmony perspective is that in the winter, Davis is 

immersed in a valley wide aerosol blanket trapped under the inversion, and thus local 

influences, in this case in-town traffic, had little additional impact. 

The second point is from the 2001 -2002 Sacramento Transect study. The site 

Davis West was far from any freeway in a residential area off Amador Avenue. The 

Davis east site, however, was about 50 m south of I-80 and Childs Road at the USFS 

Nursery. Note that this site, closest to I-80, had the least pollution in the rainy periods 

because the winds were from the south, and thus the site lay upwind of I-80. 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Site 

Rain (Dec 17-22) 

Clear (Dec 24-29) 

Rain (Dec 29-31) 

Clear (Jan1-6) 

Fog (Jan 7-10) 

Fog/Rain(Jan 10-12) 

Fog/Rain(Jan 12-15) 


ATTACHMENT 20 

In the hazy periods that saw maximum PM2.5 values, the two Davis sites were 

essentially identical during the roughly 15 days of this weather type, despite the fact that 

the Davis East was quite close to the freeway, similar on the average to the New 

Harmony site. Note also the Davis sites were similar to the freeway impacted Sacramento 

River site for 3 of the 4 sampling periods. This is despite the fact that the Sacramento 

River site was only 200 m from the Pioneer Bridge on Highway 50 and 300 m from I-5 

and thus had extremely high local levels of truck and car traffic. 

Figure 6a PM2.5 mass in two rainy periods and Christmas week 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Davis NW 

ALA/SET HETF Sacramento/I-5 Transect Study 

PM2.5 Mass in Two Rainy Periods and Christmas Week 

Dec 17 - 22 rain Dec 24 - 29 Dec 30 - 31 rain 

Davis E 

Interstate 5 

Figure 6b PM2.5 mass in hazy/foggy periods 

Sac River ARB 13th and S Orangevale 

Crocker Art Arden Middle Shingle Springs 

Sampling sites from west to east 


35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

No te: Light rain 

on Jan 10 

Davis NW 

Davis E 

4. Point of Analysis #3 

ALA/SET HETF Sacramento/I-5 Transect Study 

PM2.5 Mass in Hazy/Foggy Periods 

Jan 1 - 6 Jan 7 - 10 Jan 10 - 12 Jan 12 - 15 

Interstate 5 

ATTACHMENT 20 

Sac River ARB 13th and S Orangevale 

Crocker Art Arden Middle Shingle Springs 

Sampling sites from west to east 

Below I show plots of freeway fall off from the lead studies of 1973, The ultra 

fine studies of 2002, and Emfac 2007. Note that the calculation is done from the edge of 

the nearest traffic lane, which in the case of New Harmony lies even farther away from 

the highway that the closet point, 100 feet. 


(This section incomplete as of 8/6/2008) 

Description 

Back Peak Hour 11100 

Back Peak Month 133000 

Back AADT 126000 

Ahead Peak Hour 11500 

Ahead Peak Month 143000 

Ahead AADT 135000 

ATTACHMENT 20 

128000 truck 11226 (22,451) 8.8 %, 2 axel = 29%, 3 = 8%, 4 = 3%, 5+ axel = 

61% 


5. Mitigation 

ATTACHMENT 20 

The proximity of the New Harmony project to Interstate 80 will result in some 

modest level of impact, reduced by the fact the New Harmony is generally upwind of I- 

80 most of the time. Nevertheless, there can be some impact, and thus options for 

mitigation can be and should be included in the project. There are 4 possibel approached 

to mitigation: 

1. Mitigation via source reduction 

2. Mitigation via roadway design 

3. Mitigation right of way to receptor 

4. Mitigation at the receptor 

Of these, the first is not practicable, as the City of Davis has no control over the 

number, type and fuels of vehicles traveling I-80. The advances in state and federal 

regulations, however, promise continued reduction in roadway emissions that will 

probably be to some degree offset by the expected increase of traffic. The second would 

require an agreement between Davis and CalTrans to modify conditions within the right 

of way, which could and at other sites has included sound walls, low, and high vegetation. 

The third right of way to receptor, is completely in the hands of the developers, and 

options exist to also address the fourth component, air quality at the receptor, via 

improved air filtration techniques. 

a. Mitigation via source reduction 

As has been shown above, there are excellent current data for emission rates of 

vehicles on the open highway and in laboratory conditions, data that allow a good match 

from vehicles on the highway to aerosols downwind of the highway. From such data, one 

can easily theoretically modify the source strength by increasing or decreasing the 

number of cars and trucks, increasing or decreasing the emissions per car or truck. Of 

special interest is the fact that a small number of automobiles dominate total automobile 

particulate emissions ( gross emitting or smoking cars ), some but not all of which of 

which emit visible smoke. Removal of a relatively small number of such cars would 

result in dramatic reductions in automobile pollution. However, realistically, we have 

little local control over these factors, which are driven by federal and state mandates 

more than local planning decisions. 

While we support all state and federal actions to lower source emission rates, we 

believe that much can be accomplished at reasonable cost and in a short time frame by 

using one or more of the mitigation methods outlined below. 

b. Mitigation via roadway design 

This area provides important long term possibilities for mitigation, but such 

concepts are not widely supported by either experiments or models. 

a. Nature of the roadway source 

Cars and trucks on a highway create a mixed zone due to the turbulence of the 

vehicles, which is roughly 1.5 times the height of the mean vehicle at freeway speeds, 


ATTACHMENT 20 

less at low speeds. This mixed zone contains emissions form the vehicles, including 

waste heat. This waste heat tends to make the road pollution slightly buoyant, as was 

shown in the extensive studies in Cahill et al 1974. It was found that the cut section Santa 

Monica freeway (at 250,000 vehicles/day) increased in temperature 1.4 o F/minute, 

resulting in a cyclic cleaning of the road edge aerosols on a roughly 9 minute cycle. This 

was one of the major factors (the other being vegetation at the right of way edge) that the 

aerosols downwind of the Santa Monica freeway were only 20% of what a line source 

diffusion model would predict (see Table 2). Thus, roadways should be designed to 

hinder easy lateral transport of pollution and enhance the upward motion the excess heat 

delivers. 

b. Mitigation within the right of way 

This buoyant lift can be modeled by adding a vertical vector to the lateral wind 

velocity. This may also be the reason that the aerosol mass measured downwind of 

Interstate-5 at the elevated Crocker Art Museum site was higher than the model would 

predict. This tendency can be enhanced by placing a barrier to direct lateral motion from 

the roadway, slowing the lateral velocity and allowing the lift to raise the pollution level 

and entraining cleaner higher altitude air. This heating could, in summer, be enhanced by 

a hot roadway surface. 

Example: I-5 south of Sutterville Road, Sacramento. However, the central area 

and potential vegetation was removed in a lane addition project. 


ATTACHMENT 20 

Such a barrier can also be included by placing barriers, ideally vegetation, in the 

median strip. This will slow transport of pollution from the upwind lane in to the 

downwind lane, and again encourage vertical motion. 

The addition advantage of vegetation is that it acts as a deposition surface for the 

very fine and especially ultra fine particles. HETF studies are in progress to evaluate this 

effect, especially for the most toxic very fine and ultra fine species generated by diesels 

and automobiles. 

There are also some very expensive mitigations, such as placing the entire 

roadway in a cut section which we will not consider due to cost. 

c. Mitigation from the right-of-way to the receptor 

The most important mitigation from the right of way to the receptor is distance. 

As shown above in Table 2 (Cahill et al, 1974; Feeney et al, 1976, Harrison at al 1997) 

all the way to recent work, Figure 1 (Zhu et al, 2002), the highway influence for the most 

toxic materials decreases to about 10% of near highway values at distances between 160 

m and 240 m for at grade roads. 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

CO Black Carbon Number Lead (1974) 

-240 -160 -80 

-200 -120 -40 

0 

40 

80 

160 240 320 400 

120 200 280 360 

Upwind Distance from Freeway 710 (m) Downwind 

Figure 1 Profiles across the 710 freeway in an at-grade section in Los Angeles for carbon 

monoxide (CO), black carbon (BC), and particle number, with the data of Cahill et al 

1974 superimposed. 

Recent data (Harrison at al. 2004) use the distance of 50 m in Birmingham, 

England, to separate near roadway from far roadway cohorts for health effect studies. 


ATTACHMENT 20 

Conversely, the ARB recently reported (2006) that the number distribution did not meet 

background values for many hundreds of m in a transect on Highway 50 in stable 

meteorological conditions in nighttime low velocity winds. However, this result was 

taken across an elevated freeway section, which has been earlier shown (see Table 2 and 

Cahill et al, 1974) to disperse freeway particles out to an estimated 2 km. Note that this 

same plot shows relatively high levels of black carbon and ultraf8ne particle number 

upwind of the freeway, and many kilometers downwind of the nearest upwind roadway. 

Thus, it does little good to reduce the roadway impact to very small levels if there is an 

important upwind background, such as exists in downtown Sacramento 

The second form of mitigation is to impose barriers between the right-of-way and 

the receptor that can force air up and generate mixing, lowering values by dilution, or 

removing the particles from the air by providing surfaces for deposition, impaction, and 

settling. 

The literature is weak in this area, but one article (Kim et al, 2005) found that 

sound walls were not very effective barriers to pollution. There is a considerable 

literature, however, on urban street canyons, and the effect of tall buildings on local 

pollution. The result is that there is a mixing of the polluted ground level air with 

(presumably) cleaner elevated levels, reducing concentrations by dilution. With a line 

source like a highway, lateral diffusion is little help, so that the mixing must be vertical. 

Turbulence is induced by a pierced barrier, which allows air to pass at some spots but not 

others, and this would favor an irregular barrier, not a smooth wall with laminar flow of 

air (and pollutants). 

Support for this form of mitigation is given by the anomalously clean masses 

measured at the downwind edge of the Arden Middle School complex. The mixture of 

buildings and trees (without leaves) was adequate to lower the roadway aerosols by a 

factor of 2 or more (see above). Support is also given by the rapid fall off of lead aerosols 

at the Santa Monica Freeway site (Cahill et al, 1974), which involved passage through a 

thick barrier of vegetation. Whatever the effect, the combination of roadway heating and 

vegetative barrier produced a dramatic reduction in lead, over a factor of 5 at 100 m. 

But for ultra fine particles, there is an additional option, These particles are so fine 

that they have long diffusion lengths and the ability to move to a surface, if it is close 

enough. Thus, we can make these barriers in such a way that air passes through closely 

spaced structures. As can be seen below from the summary of Seinfeld and Pandas, 1997, 

particles below about 0.05 µm, responsible for most of the particle number, much of the 

surface area, and a significant fraction of ultra fine mass, have high diffusion lengths and 

thus equivalent setting velocities , which in the case of very fine/ultra fine particles, can 

be either up, down or sideways, since gravity is not a factor in a Brownian motion 

dominate system. 


Particle Theory Dep vel settling Removal 

diameter D Diffusion cp S&P pg 970 Velocity v 

microns cm2/sec mm/sec cm/sec cm/sec cm/sec cm/sec 

0.002 1.28E-002 0.866 4965 Total 

0.004 3.23E-003 0.435 1760 d 

0.01 5.24E-004 0.175 444 0.500 0.500 

0.02 1.30E-004 0.087 157 0.100 0.100 

0.04 3.59E-005 0.046 55.5 0.022 0.022 

0.1 6.82E-006 0.020 14 0.015 0.015 

0.2 2.21E-006 0.011 4.96 0.010 0.010 

0.4 8.32E-007 0.007 1.76 0.015 0.015 

1 2.74E-007 0.004 0.444 0.018 0.004 0.022 

2 1.27E-007 0.003 0.157 0.030 0.015 0.045 

4 6.1E-008 0.002 0.056 0.075 0.075 

10 2.38E-008 0.001 0.014 0.500 0.500 

Table 3 Deposition velocities for particles 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

Removal Velocity 

Diffusion plus settling 

ATTACHMENT 20 

0.01 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 10 

Particle Diameter (microns) 

Figure 2 Plot of deposition velocities for particles. Note the rapid removal for ultra fine 

particles. 

Using threes values, one can calculate the removal of particles passing through 

finely divided needles or leaves in a tree, with the assumption that these ultra fine 

m[particles are generally sticky with oils, and once they contact a surface, they do not 

easily leave it until washed off. 

d. Mitigation at the receptor 

This area has a large and growing literature, via models, and other resources show 

that mitigation at the receptor has the proven potential to make the largest improvements 


ATTACHMENT 20 

in air quality, to the point where the indoor air is much cleaner than even the regional 

outdoor air for very important pollutants, including very fine particles and ozone. 

The state of the field was recently summarized (Morawska, 2006), based on her 

recent book. The basic science behind the indoor/outdoor (I/O) ratio of concentrations 

can be simplified when there are no internal sources (cooking, candles, smoking, ) to 

I/O Cinside/Coutside = P a/(a + k), 

where P is the penetration factor, a = the air exchange rate, usually expressed in 1/hours, 

and k = deposition (removal) of particles within the receptor, likewise expressed as 

1/hours. Thus, there is a strong seasonal effect, with the air exchange rate minimizing in 

very cold conditions and, if air conditioning is available, in very hot conditions. 

Morawska, while listing the myriad aspects that affect indoor air, summarized that 

at times there is very little difference between the characteristics of indoor and outdoor 

particles. For example, for naturally ventilated buildings the penetration of particles of all 

sizes with significance to human heath is almost 100 percent. From roughly a score of 

studies, she found that the median Indoor/Outdoor ratio, I/O for naturally ventilated 

houses was 

PM10 

I/O = 0.64 

PM2.5 

I/O = 0.85 

Particle number I/O = 0.56, which was also close the value for ozone. 

However, I disagree with her statement in that recent studies and summaries of 

studies (EPA 2006) focus on the health impacts of the finest particles, which means the 

sharp reduction in particle numbers shown by and I/O ratio of 0.56 represents a 

significant health advantage. 

Thus, buildings downwind of Watt Avenue would be closely coupled to the 

emissions from the highway, although with some mitigation occurring in naturally 

ventilated houses for the most worrisome very fine and ultra fine particles. To go beyond 

these generalities requires evaluation of each individual receptor site, its use patterns, 

construction, and other details 

Mechanically ventilated buildings provide additional options, to the point that the 

indoor air can essentially be as clean as one wishes. An example is a recent study in 

Fairbanks, AK, (Reynolds and Cahill, 2004) during the heavy forest fires on 2004. The 

city of Fairbanks lived under a pall of smoke for months, with 24 hr PM2.5 levels in the 

region of 500 g/m 3 . Studies were made during this period on indoor air cleaning. Two 

conditions were considered, treated outdoor air and internally circulated air, and two 

kinds of filters were used, HEPA and a more porous and standard electrostatic filter. 

With internally circulated air, the Fantech 3000 HEPA filter lowered particle 

PM2.5 mass of smoke by 98%, which is much less than the 99.97% the manufacturer 


ATTACHMENT 20 

claimed. A Matrix Air 450 cfm HEPA didn t do nearly as well, with decreases averaging 

70%. The less efficient MERV 11 Filter plus pleated carbon, rated at 60 to 65% 

efficiency, actually achieved 75% reduction. 

When the Fantech 3000 was used for outside air in a pressured mode, it reduced 

aerosols by 92 to 98%. The 90 to 95% MERV 14 reduced outside air, from PM2.5 492 

µg/m 3 to 52 µg/m 3 , or 72% (natural ventilation was 185 µg/m 3 ). However, when highly 

polluted outdoor air was brought into the building through an inefficient filter, it actually 

raised pollution levels. Thus, pressurization with clean air can be made to work. 

In the winter, 2006 study at Arden Middle School, the heating system of the 

teacher ready room, a separate recirculation system, was supplied with these improved 

(but not HEPA) filters. They used MERV 11 filters, rated at 60 to 65% efficiency and 

rated at 1.0 to 3.0 microns. The result was a dramatic 75% reduction in very fine and ultra 

fine particles (Table 2). The key point is that the pressure drop across these filters, unlike 

HEPA filters, is low enough that standard air conditioning and heating systems can be 

used, with a major savings in cost. 

With air brought in from outside, the HEPA filters have a high pressure drop and 

require more powerful fans than is normal in air handling systems. However, theoretical 

analysis indicates that a standard electrostatic filter should get more and more efficient as 

the particle size droops to 0.1 µm and below, offering the option a system like a standard 

attic fan blowing air into a house through such a filter, or more likely a standard furnace 

filter followed by an electrostatic filter to reduce dust clogging. This would result in a 

slightly positively pressurized house or school, blocking the input of polluted outdoor air. 

This option has being studied under a grant from the Sacramento Metropolitan 

AQMD, with results released in June, 2008 


ATTACHMENT 21 

Acoustical Analysis & Memo 

by LSA Associates dated December 2007 

In order to save paper, this attachment has been provided in the 

Planning Commission packets only. 

Copies are available to view at: 


located at 23 Russell Blvd., Davis 

They may be downloaded at: 

http://www.cityofdavis.org/cdd/projects/New-Harmony-Apartment/ 

For Questions Please Contact: 


(530) 757-5610 

elee@cityofdavis.org 















ATTACHMENT 25 

New Harmony Affordable Housing Project (8/26/08) 

Information in Response to Neighborhood Questions and Concerns 

Management Policies 

o The neighbors wanted to know if background checks are run on residents. 

Yes, management runs credit, criminal and rental history checks on all new tenants. If an 

applicant has a felony on their record, they will not be rented to. 

o The neighbors were also interested in what the process is for dealing with residents who 

become a problem. In what cases is there an eviction? 

Residents need to abide by all rules. Non-payment or drugs are grounds for immediate 

eviction, as are serious breaches of rules or continued disruptive behavior. 

Property Management Contacts: 

On-site manager: Lydia Johnson, (530) 753-2573, lydiah@jbm-inc.com 

Jon Berkley Management : Michelle McGraw, (530) 753-5910, michelle@jbm-inc.com 

(Lydia’s boss, SMHA (owner)’s main contact with Jon Berkley Management) 

Crime Issues 

o The neighbors reported a problem with crime in the neighborhood, including some 

assaults and many vehicle break-ins. 

The management company, on-site manager, and Davis Police Department all confirmed that 

there were some problems in the past, but that those have ended as better management has 

been implemented. The owners changed management companies in January and the 

improved management has addressed this concern. Michele Reynolds, the community police 

officer with Davis Police, reported that there have been no problems and no police calls on 

record since the management switch. If the neighbors witness any crime or disturbances, the 

City and owners ask that they call the police right away. In addition, the following steps will 

ensure continued safety in the area: 

1. Owendale is part of the Crime Free Program run by the Davis Police Dept. In November, 

the police will sponsor a training opportunity for the on-site management. SMHA staff 

(owner) will also attend. As part of this program, the Davis Police Dept. will also survey 

the property to ensure that all areas are sufficiently lighted and free of landscaping that 

may create places to hide. Davis Police will also sponsor a resident social where a police 

officer will inform residents about crime prevention. 

2. The neighbors can participate in the Neighborhood Watch program. Lydia (on-site 

manager) at Owendale will receive information to distribute to neighbors about how to 

prevent vehicle theft. Other programs are also available if neighbors are interested in 

creating a Neighborhood Watch group with Owendale residents. 

3. In review of police calls, domestic violence was identified as the primary type of call. 

SMHA (owner) has asked Jon Berkley Management (property management company) to 

implement a comprehensive policy to address domestic violence at Owendale. The 

following draft policy is expected to be in place within a few weeks: 

The Administrator will report incidents of domestic violence and child abuse to the appropriate 

authorities, and we encourage residents to do likewise. Residents involved in an incident of 

domestic violence and/or child abuse will be issued a notice. If the incident is severe, victims will 

be asked to obtain a restraining order and be provided with a list of resources, intervention 

programs, and support groups by Management. Reoccurrence of these incidents and failure to 

obtain a restraining order may result in termination of the resident’s Occupancy Agreement. 


Youth 

o There was a general impression that the youth at Owendale don’t have things to do and 

end up “hanging out” in the neighborhood and causing problems. 

The on-site manager did not observe these problems. SMHA (owner) is looking into options 

for youth activities, and when New Harmony opens additional services and amenities will be 

made available to youth. 

o One resident was concerned about kids hanging out at the small park on Albany. 

The on-site open space at New Harmony exceeds the size of the public park. New Harmony 

would also include a children’s play area, basketball hoop, children’s and adult garden, and 

outdoor picnic area for the residents on-site. 

o One resident asked whether the School District could accommodate additional students. 

The School District has stated their interest and ability to accommodate children who would 

live in this project, as they collect funding based on children served. 

Owendale Patios 

o Neighbors have concerns about items collecting on the patios at Owendale. 

The patios have been inspected twice since the June meeting, and no major problems with 

storage have been observed. Management walks the building, and if tenants have a bunch of 

stuff, they receive a notice asking them to clean up. Residents are responsible for the 

maintenance of the lawns on their patios, but management will mow if the residents do not. 

Some residents have a lot of plantings on their patios, which can sometimes get overgrown; if 

this becomes serious the resident will receive a notice. 

SMHA (owner) is also applying to NeighborWorks America for additional funding to do 

landscape improvements and replace patio fences, as replacement is needed. 

Owendale Landscaping 

o Neighbors noted that the landscaping near the fence had been cut way back and they 

requested that the landscaping extend above the fence as much as possible. In general, 

SMHA (owner) should be sure that the landscaping is well-maintained throughout the 

site. 

Management has been made aware and will ask the landscaping company not to over-cut. 

However, landscaping and hedges cannot get too overgrown or it can become a hazard – 

falling on people, or creating a place for people to hide. 

Residents – location of employment and prior city of residence 

o Neighbors have concerns that the City is building housing for people who don’t live or 

work in Davis. 

The majority of residents currently living in Owendale were already living and/or working in 

Davis prior to moving into Owendale. After Davis, the second most previous place of 

residence was Woodland. The majority of residents are employed either in Davis, Woodland, 

Dixon, or Sacramento. 

Parking: 

o Questions and concern were raised about the adequacy of parking. 

SMHA (owner) will direct management to assign parking spaces to all residents. It is 

SMHA’s experience at our other properties, including Owendale, that fewer tenants own 

vehicles and not all of the parking spaces are used. The City’s experience has also been that 

affordable housing sites consistently do not use the required parking. 


ATTACHMENT 26 

Date of Public Hearing: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 

ATTACHMENT 26 

To: The Members of the City of Davis Planning Commission, Sacramento Mutual Housing 

Association and to Yolo Mutual Housing Association: 

Regarding: New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community, located at the Southwest corner 

of Cowell Boulevard and Drummond Avenue, in South Davis. 

I read the Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability and I was glad to read that 

‘An Initial Study analyzed that there was no substantial evidence of potential environmental 

impact’ in constructing this 69-unit affordable apartment community on a vacant parcel. Good. 

What is completely ignored by the aforementioned agencies and owners to this property 

is the substantial and damaging potential impact on the poor people that are forced to live so 

close to the I-80 Interstate Freeway and to the railroad tracks. Every month the traffic on I-80 

increases in volume and two years ago an item in the Sacramento Bee stated that there were a 

minimum of 40 trains a day on the tracks (going west out of Sacramento towards Davis and 

beyond). 

Like myself, these potential renters for New Harmony do not have the finances to live 

wherever they want. These people that qualify for low-income housing will be told what 

apartment they’re going to live in. No choice, but they’re so happy to have a place to live that 

they can afford, they don’t say anything., at first. 

One of the problems of low income is that many of us do not use our air-conditioners or 

heaters very much because of the choice of utilities or food or other necessary expenses. New 

Harmony is for all families, no single occupants, therefore these families have a constant 

purchasing of food, clothes, shoes, school, and medical expenses that takes away from spending 

on utilities. 

I am on a fixed income and it is not really enough. I have to skimp more than I consider 

sane and rational. Running my air-conditioner or my heater, as much or at the recommended 

temperatures, is impossible. My second floor apartment is not right on the frontage road, 


ATTACHMENT 26 

Cowell, and I would never consider leaving my windows closed 24/7 and run my air-conditioner 

instead. My utility bill would be outrageous and I couldn’t afford it. 

New Harmony is supposed to have thicker insulation and, of course, double pane 

windows, to block out the noise of the freeway and the trains. The renters are suppose to never 

open their windows for fresh air, even when the outside temperature is comfortable. I even heard 

of a brick wall to be built for sound proofing. The only way a brick wall would work is if it 

surrounded New Harmony on three sides, namely the West, North, and East sides and it would 

have to be over 30 feet tall to be effective. 

Personally, I find the noise from the 24/7 trains that pass through or stop and go in Davis, 

coupled with the 6 lanes of fast cars, trucks, motorcycles, and emergency vehicles, make it near 

impossible to open the window in my bedroom for the fresh air I require at night. Overhead fans 

are insufficient. This noise from the freeway and trains is maddening. You cannot hear the 

television or radio. You cannot sleep through the trains stopping or starting with jerks. In order 

to have a reasonable conversation, two people must almost shout to be understood. 

Finally – The reason the original zoning of this property was set at “Business Park” is 

because the freeway and the trains don’t bother businesses, where no one sleeps or tries to 

conduct normal home activities. “Residential High Density” of New Harmony is just going to 

result in a high vacancy rate and potentially high stress and physical and/or emotional abuse 

from the poor families that are forced to live in such an improperly thought out community. 

It is my firm 100% belief that NONE of you would EVER LIVE in New Harmony if you 

had to. There would be divorces from your spouses, abandonment from your children and 

friends, and you’d go crazy yourself. Never in your wildest nightmares would you live at New 

Harmony. 

This property at Cowell and Drummond represents the wrong place to build an 

apartment complex. 

Thank you for your time, 

Sandy Crary 

P.O. Box 1316 



From: Don Emlay [mailto:don.emlay@arcadiabio.com] 

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:34 AM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: New Harmony Apartment Complex 

ATTACHMENT 26 

Eric – Thanks for the notice. Several points that we would like to get on the record. 

1. At the last meeting and in talking with the police officer present, he said the Davis police force is 

several officers short of having enough people on the street based on the present population of 

Davis. Ensuring we have a police force of the necessary size for the current population 

must be achieved prior to bringing more people into the city. I believe this is extremely 

important because… 

2. In a recent article in the Sacrament Bee, the significant increase in crime in Natomas was 

attributed directly to the increase in affordable housing. The police office in attendance at the last 

meeting acknowledged that much of the vandalism in and around the Mono Place and Koso area 

was related to the affordable housing. 

3. Our small area, Mono and Koso, will soon be surrounded by affordable housing – The city must 

consider the impact on those of us who own homes in this location – not just property 

vales but the general impact on the neighborhood. Nearly every morning as I drive for work 

and pass the complex at the East end of Mono Place, there is trash in the street (fast food bags) 

from either the residents or visitors – it isn’t from thos of us who own homes in the neighborhood. 

My guess is that these apartments will be built regardless of how those of us in the neighborhood feel or 

any facts related to issues associated with affordable housing. I hope the city is not wasting our time by 

simply going through the motions with the public meetings. 

Thanks again, Don Emlay 

3406 Mono Place 

(530) 304-6837 


From: Carol Wise [mailto:carolwisetkd@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:32 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: Proposed New Harmony Affordable Apartment Community 

ATTACHMENT 26 

Eric, 

I will not be able to come to this meeting on 8/26, but I urge the City of Davis to deny this 

request to rezone to allow these apartments to be build. I have stated it before, but must insist 

again, that it will be a disaster to this community: 

1. the roads will not be able to take this increase in traffic without great risk to our neighborhood 

safety, we moved from North Davis after the semi caused the bicycle death of Ellie from the 

Davis Athletic Club -- we actually saw it,it was horrible -- North Davis is really overdeveloped, 

we can't have this happen here. 

2. the crime will increase exponentially, we would be in the Axis of Crime between this, 

Rosewood and Albany. I've already told you that the tireslashings, lighting smashings and the 

disorderly conduct (including the swat team having to be called out on the some Rosewood folks 

- IN OUR DRIVEWAY NO LESS) all are traced to Rosewood and Albany folk-- it will only 

increase crime. 

3. this is a rural portion of Davis according to the Davis Post Office, how can we put a three 

story apartment complex in the 'rural' section of Davis??? It goes against the single-family look 

and feel and FEDERAL POSTAL designation... 

The city of Davis must deny this. I have never felt more strongly about an issue in my 20 years 

in Davis. 

Regards, 

Carol Ann Wise 


From: Linda Niixon [mailto:honeydoo@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 11:45 AM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: New Harmony Apts 

ATTACHMENT 26 

Just what our neighborhood needs another getto right in the heart of our community. You should 

build a police station right next door since the police are always around the Albany apts. What a 

shame. 

Linda Nixon 


Message 

From: Sandy Crary [mailto:sandykcrary@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:48 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: New Harmony 

Dear Mr. Lee: 

ATTACHMENT 26 

I was going to attend the open house tonight regarding New Harmony Community 

Apartments, but it is just too hot for me to go out and I don't get along with 

summer heat. 

1) Changing the General Plan and Rezoning so that a high density of 69 

apartments can be built in that lot is just outrageous. If the plan had been for 

50 or less apartments, I wouldn't have any problems. 

2) Having elevators in a low income complex is just the most STUPID thing 

possible. Are the planners planning on giving the elevator repairman an 

apartment so that he will be onsight 24/7. You've got to be thinking yourself 

that the kids are going to be playing in the elevators 18/7. If many kids in 

other low income complexes have no parental control, what's going to change at 

New Harmony? Nothing. 

3) If the plans had been for third floors as part of an apartment, as they are 

in Owendale, then there would be no need for elevators. 

4) I guess a sound blocking wall three stories tall is going to be built between 

New Harmony and the freeway/train/side street. That's the only thing that's 

going to stop the sound. 40+ trains a day, 6 lanes of heavy freeway traffic and 

2 lanes of close side street make for a very noisy corner. 

5) If tenant damage cannot be controled at other low income complexes, such as 

destruction to the swimming pool area/laundry room/community room/even dumpster 

areas, how is New Harmony going to differ? Is there going to be a 24/7 Security 

Guard Service on the property, someone that also must be given an apartment 

because of the comstant need? 

6) I will make one last comment regarding the change in zoning and general plan. 

What did the City of Davis and its representatives get in exchange for pushing 

through the changes that the previous City Board said shouldn't happen? It's a 

give and take world and a honest answer should be given to me. A lot of us would 

like to know how the city works. 

69 Apartments is too much. 

Thank you. 

Sandy Crary 



Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:08 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Cc: Carol Wise 

Subject: Email Comments on: New Harmony Neighborhood Open House - 6/18 at 6:30-8:00 

Hello Eric, 

ATTACHMENT 26 

I was not able to get home in time to attend the meeting tonight, so I am writing you my 

concerns. In an earlier email I outlined why I opposed this development and rezoning. Again, I 

would like to stress, that the Albany apartments and Rosewood apartments are within two blocks 

of our street. The Davis police spend more time at these two apartment complexes for crime 

related calls than any other apartments -- the new proposal would create a 'bermuda triangle' of 

crime that would endanger the community. (Davis swat arrested two people in our driveway, it 

was terrifying-- they were from Rosewood; and, vandals from Albany slashed all tires of cars 

parked on the street and tore off lighting fixtures on our street - my minivan had 3 tires 

completed destroyed). Please do not rezone this area for this type of dwelling. I believe we have 

more than our fair share of low income housing this side of Putah Creek. Please consider this 

information carefully and don ot approve the rezoning. 

Regards, Carol Ann Wise 


From: Don Emlay [mailto:don.emlay@arcadiabio.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:25 AM 

To: Eric Lee 

Cc: Don Saylor; Stephen Souza; deborah osborn 


ATTACHMENT 26 

Eric – Thanks again for your time the other day to discuss my concerns about the development. I am 

sending this note to get our (my wife Deborah and me) concerns and comments on the record in hopes 

they will be considered during the decision making process for this property. 

In all decisions concerning land use, the city must first consider the impact on homeowners who 

will be most impacted by the decision. Our presence in Davis and the taxes we pay must be a 

factor. 

The decision to purchase a home in any particular area is guided, in part, by the zoning of the 

nearby areas – what will be built there and how will it impact the neighborhood and future value of 

the property. If zoning can be changed based on the desire of developers but not on a clearly 

defined need, how can the city be trusted to actually look out for existing residents? 

South Davis “appears” to have more than its share of apartments. I don’t know what percent are 

affordable but it should be a consideration in building more! 

What is the intent or goal of affordable housing? It cannot be promised to individuals who work in 

Davis! Any waiting list is on a first-come & qualified basis. Isn’t there a far greater need to 

provide housing that is affordable for teachers, fire fighters, city employees, UCD employees and 

other who cannot afford to live in Davis? Most, if not all of these categories, will not qualify for 

affordable housing. 

How many people currently living in affordable housing in Davis actually work in Davis? It seems 

to me the city should know this and use this as a factor in allowing more affordable housing to be 

built. 

So – I guess the overriding question for me is “Who actually benefits from the construction of 

these affordable housing units?” 

I don’t know if all my questions are answerable or if our concerns represent current homeowners but I 

believe they are viable and must be considered. 

Thanks again, Don 

3406 Mono Place 

Don Emlay 

Director, Regulatory Affairs and Compliance 

(530) 304-6837 

Please consider the environment before printing this email 

Arcadia Biosciences Inc. 

202 Cousteau Place Suite 200 


Phone: (530) 756-7077 

Fax: (530) 756-7027 

www.arcadiabio.com 

This email message, including any of its attachments, may contain information that is confidential or otherwise 

legally protected from unauthorized use or disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any 

review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is 

prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by replying 

to this message and permanently delete and/or destroy all electronic and printed versions of the message and its 

attachments. 


ATTACHMENT 26 

From: Tori Bovard [mailto:tabovard@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:53 AM 

To: Sue Greenwald; Ruth Asmundson; Lamar Heystek; Don Saylor; Stephen Souza 

Cc: Bill Emlen 

Subject: Proposal: New Harmony Affordable Apartments (SW corner of Cowell Blvd. and Drummond) 

Dear City Council Members, 

I am writing you to express my concern regarding the proposed New Harmony Affordable 

Apartments, which are intended to be built around the corner from my home in south Davis. As 

you know, a few years ago a similar complex, Owendale Community, was built on Albany 

Drive. Essentially this complex is a continuation of that complex, as it will be built right behind 

it. As of now, only a fence separates those parcels. 

Since Owendale has been built, there have been several problems often associated with low 

income housing--such as shopping carts and furniture left on the sidewalks or streets. (I'm happy 

to elaborate on this if necessary.) Whereas I realize that everyone needs a place to live, adding 

69 more units (some of which are three-bedroom) is simply too high a concentration of low 

income housing for our little neighborhood. Further, adding more three-story buildings is not in 

keeping with the quiet residential surroundings. I fear that if this project is allowed to go forth, it 

could be followed by more high density housing, a convenience store etc. 

It is my understanding that this project requires a rezoning of the parcel to be changed from 

Business Park and Industrial Research to Residential High Density and Multi-family. It requires 

a General Plan Amendment; thus it is clearly not consistent with our general plan. When we 

purchased our home, we were careful to consider the zoning of the undeveloped parcels in our 

neighborhood. I am not alone in my opposition of this--many of my neighbors share my 

concern. 

I would very much appreciate any guidance or insight in understanding the process so that we 

can try to keep this development from being built in our neighborhood. Any support you could 

lend would also be appreciated! 

Sincerely, 

Tori Bovard 

802 Christie Ct. 


750-2786 

-- 


From: Don Emlay [mailto:donemlay@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 7:50 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION #61 07 

ATTACHMENT 26 

Is this affordable housing actually based on a need for current Davis residents? 

I know students cannot occupy this housing and waiting lists cannot favor Davis 

residents! Does this housing really meet a demand for affordable housing for 

Davis or is it at opportunity for a Sacramento developer to build in Davis? 

I understand from a previous discussion that these will meet "established 

standards" for parking but as anyone living near affordable housing knows, there 

are always multiple cars parked on the street indicating the on site parking is 

not adequate. Building housing that people who work in Davis can afford is far 

more urgent and important than building housing that may not even be available to 

people working here. 

On a personal note affordable housing does negatively impact property values 

and this must be considered by the city. Mono Place will now have a high number 

of affordable units in close proximity. The city has a responsibility to current 

homeowners to consider the impact of affordable housing on existing property 

values. Why not have a "neighborhood meeting"? 

Don Emlay, 3406 Mono Place, 530 304 6837 


From: missnautica8@aol.com [mailto:missnautica8@aol.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:42 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: rezoning not agreed upon Gang activity already File # 61-07 

ATTACHMENT 26 

Hi Eric 

We do not agree with a new plan and zoning for MORE low income apts. near by. We live on 

Koso St. and have much too much crime, vandalism and theft because of the other low income 

apts. nearby. We have had thousands of dollars worth of property destroyed and ripped off from 

the nearby youth. The police officers are here every week, ( at the apts ) and and homes which 

were vandalized or ripped off. Some of the people who live in the apts are involved in GANG 

activity and we will not put up with another complex so close by! 

I am sure that you dont want us to fight this issue. 

thank you 

missnautica 


From: Ram Sah [mailto:r-sah@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:42 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: Planning Application #61-07 

ATTACHMENT 26 

Dear Eric: 

I wish to convey to the city's Planning and Building Department and the City Council that city 

must refrain from the practice rezoning of commercial and industrial land for residential use on 

case by case basis. I am not against the rezoning. If the city wishes to rezone industrial to 

residential use, it should do it for a general area. The practice of rezoning on a case by case basis 

that city has used so far have involved influence peddling. Such practice generally make 

common people feel that such rezoning might have involved some form of bribery. 

Please convey this message to the members of the City Council. 

Thanks, 

Ram N. Sah, Ph. D. 

Broker, Investor, Land Developer 

1721 Sapphire Ct. 

Davis CA,95618 

TEL: (530) 409-5167 

FAX: (866) 833-4003 

EMAIL: r-sah@sbcglobal.net 


From: Frank J. Bernhard [mailto:fbernhard@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:17 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: Comments on Planning Application #61 07: New Harmony Affordable 

Apartment Project 

Importance: High 

Eric, 

ATTACHMENT 26 

Thank you once again for taking the time to return my telephone call yesterday 

and discuss the specific details of the proposed affordable housing project at 

Cowell Boulevard and Drummond Avenue. As a homeowner and resident on Mono Place, 

the adjacent development poses some specific concerns that impact our respective 

neighborhood and the greater city at large. 

First and foremost, the density of affordable housing and special project tenants 

within a half mile radius of Mono Place is already too high by proximity of most 

urban standards. On the East end of our street, we have the Rosewood community 

project, the Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence (SADVC) shelter, and the low 

income elderly commons. To the West of this area, we have the already 

constructed affordable multi family complex at the cross street of Albany Avenue 

and Drummond Avenue. The single family home dwellings being surrounded by these 

residential high density developments continue to suffer from the externalities 

created by imposing too many residents in a concentrated region. 

Of documented concern and data on local crime statistics, a certain volume of 

criminal activity has either originated or been committed while transiting 

between the Rosewood (Ohlone Street) and Albany Avenue facilities over the past 

five years. I have personally witnessed Davis Police officers apprehend suspects 

involved in the commission of burglary, public disturbance, and vandalism crimes 

to name just a few. These suspects either lived or were associated with 

residents of these facilities; the City's dispatch records validate the arrest of 

these individuals and the crimes committed on Mono Place, Koso Street, and Cowell 

Boulevard. A marked increase in criminal trespass does not benefit those with a 

vested interest in a safe community. 

Additionally, the City claims that our public works and services have fallen far 

below budgeted capacity and cutbacks prove necessary. Adding high density 

housing without the marginal property tax basis will only worsen an already grave 

situation of not being able to support the existing infrastructure of water, 

sewer, schools, police, fire, and other public services that Davis has enjoyed 

over the decades. Reducing the carbon footprint and making Davis a green city 

requires careful analysis of how to best allocate scarce resources among the 

resident population and minimize the burden of urban sprawl. 

Apart from crime and conservation of municipal services, the added congestion of 

these multi family dwellings does not appear to add to the economic enhancement 

of the South Davis area in such the same way as commercial structures in a 

business park or industrial research classification. I personally oppose 

rezoning and further amendments to the General Plan that might extinguish the 

benefits of a healthier tax base. 


ATTACHMENT 26 

If and when this project gains further consideration, please continue to keep me 

informed by email or regular postal mail as to the announcement of neighborhood 

hearings before the City Planning Commission. Any additional research performed 

by the City on the local feasibility of affordable housing or unmet requirements 

of existing Davis citizens would be welcomed in the future. 

Kind regards, 

Frank Bernhard 

3531 Mono Place 

Davis, CA 95618 6049 

T: (530) 758 8522 

E: fbernhard@sbcglobal.net 


From: Eduardo Eusebio [mailto:eeusebio@comcast.net] 

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:47 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: Another Proposed Project in South Davis 

Dear Mr. Eric Lee, Assistant City Planner: 

ATTACHMENT 26 

The residents of South Davis received information on yet another proposed project that for sure will 

depress the price of homes in the neighborhood. 

A neighborhood meeting is not schedule. Could you please explain and inform the South Davis 

homeowners why you are not scheduling a meeting in the neighborhood. 

We also observe that the map submitted shows streets lots and no indication that immediately adjacent to 

this project there are already two projects. How many more ghettos are proposed for South Davis? 

You are proposing a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Should we assume that you are also 

proposing an Environmental Impact Report to address the increased traffic, increased noise, increased 

crime, and lower property values. We can assure you that any proposed negative declaration will be 

challenged. Consider this the first challenge on such an attempt. 

We would also like for you to also answer the following questions: 

Do you live in Davis?_________ If yes do you live in South Davis? _____________ 

How many City planners and assistant city planners live in Davis? ________ How many City 

Planners live in South Davis? ________ 

Do any of the project proponents live in Davis? ________ How many live in South Davis? 

___________ 

Eduardo Eusebio 



Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 5:54 PM 

To: Eric Lee 

Subject: Planning Application #61-07 

Mr. Eric Lee, 

ATTACHMENT 26 

I was extremely disturbed to get the notice in the mail about the New Harmony project. 

We already have three affordable housing projects within a two street radius of that location. 

This will cause many, many problems in the area increasing population density, causing 

overcrowding of the two lane streets, and possibly (although I can say probably) increase in 

crime. The overall feeling of our area would change dramatically for the worse and cause much 

damage to the feel/look of the neighborhood (three story buildings in the rural suburbs -- that's 

what the post office tells us we are -- 'a rural suburb', I have never seen any three story buildings 

in a rural suburb). 

Please do not approve this application. I have lived in Davis twenty years, at three 

locations, love our town and this is a terrible idea. 

What is our recourse to prevent this? I didn't see a timeframe on responses from you, can I 

assume you will respond within 7 days? Thank you. 

Best regards, 

Carol Ann Wise 

cell 530-219-4080 


From: Cathy & Christian Renaudin [mailto:cdrenaudin@comcast.net] 


To: Eric Lee 

Subject: planning application #61 07 

Dear Mr. Lee, 

ATTACHMENT 26 

I reviewed your notice dated May 12. And I am quite surprised to learn that the 

city has even considered approving a housing development that close to the 

freeway. Who would ever want to live that close to the busy freeway for obvious 

noise and air pollution reasons? UCD toxicology departments have well documented 

the toxic hazard that the freeway traffic represents within 30 50 yards of the 

freeway. Have you yourself been at the site? 

There is another affordable housing development across the field in the southern 

area (Albany ave & Drummond) why letting another affordable community be built 

that close to the other existing one. I am quite puzzled by the city apparent 

lack of logic. Why don't you consider industrial or commercial development 

instead. I think it makes to have commercial building to be the buffer between 

freeway and housing like it is the more eastern and more western on Chiles? 

I think you should keep the zoning for Business Park and NOT convert to 

Residential it is both illogical and irresponsible from a human health 

perspective. 

I strongly opposed the housing project because of its inappropriate location. 

Sincerely, 

Christian Renaudin 

3538 Koso street 


From: Roger Bockrath [mailto:rogerbockrath@yahoo.com] 


To: Eric Lee 

Subject: Mystery Letter...Oops. 

ATTACHMENT 26 

Mr. Lee, My apologies for labeling your Application Notification a mystery 

letter. In my outrage over seeing yet another densely populated development 

sprouting near my property I completely missed the front side of the notification 

which contained your e mail address. Sorry about that! 

I would be very interested in learning much more about this next planned 

development. i am particularly interested to learn about traffic impacts on local 

roads and how this increase in population will impact public services, already 

experiencing budget shortfalls. Please keep me informed of any meetings and 

progress on this project in general. 

Thank you Roger Bockrath 





113 

Russell Blvd 

Covell Blvd 

.-, 80 

ÊÚ 


Location 

ATTACHMENT 27 

New Harmony 

Cowell & Drummond 

PA #61-07 

VICINITY MAP 


Location 

BOULDER PL. 

Interstate 80 

0 100 200 300 Feet 




LOS ROBLES ST. 

NANTUCKET TERRACE 

WILLOWBANK R . 



























Drummond Ave.

06 New Harmony Project - City Council - City of Davis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?