Will council let out-of-town landlord ignore Climate Policy?
August 26, 2024
Time to enforce the Law at Oakshade Mall?
By Alan ”Lorax” Hirsch
To give the landlord more flexibility to find tenants, Davis council is being asked to rezone the Oakshade Mall (Safeway) located at south Pole Line Rd x Cowell. This is before council on the Tuesday 8/27/24 agenda ( see staff report item #4). However this landlord is notorious for their neglect of its trees and is in violation of city tree protection ordinance.
So, while makes sense for city to update zoning in response to a changing retailing climate, it also makes sense to do updates in city’s relationship with this out-of-town landlord in regard to the Climate Crisis and city’s CAAP policies, changes to sustain Davis’s quality of life by deal with global heating.
More Shade is Existential
It is forecast that half Davis’s summer days will be over 100 degree in 50 years. Unshaded asphalt reachs 140+ degrees in those conditions. Davis’s CAAP climate plan appropriately calls for more tree shade as part our adaption plan. To have that shade in 50 year tree need to be planted now. And investing in tree is just good marketing sense of a long-term landlord- as contrast with incentive for on-site property manager who often just think about next quarter’s cash flow so look everywhere to cut maintenance cost.
But beyond increased tree shade called for Davis CAAP climate plan, this shopping center development has for years been in gross violation of the city’s 1990’s tree ordinance under which it was approved. That ordinance required “50% parking lot shade in 15years” The landscape plan the developer/landlords signed off as part of plan- check had them agree to no just plant trees, but maintain the newly planted trees to obtain that 50% tree shade level. This was not an impossible requirement: If you drive West of Cowell just 2 block to the Kaiser clinic you can see tree can be grown in Parking lots.
However, the landlord & his property managers have not grown and maintain trees as agreed over near 30 years the mall has been in operation. And when trees have died they have either not been replace, or replace with a shorter species. And the irrigation system has been neglected.
As you can see from attached recent arial pictures- (and picture in below linked article from 2018), the landlord has not met their legal requirement of 50% shade. A visit the site will make obvious the gross number of missing, stunted and dead trees. The north parking area is nearly tree-free.
The trees at OakShade have a history before city:
- The shopping center was named for the Oak trees removed to enable its construction
- Over the years photographs of issue have been shared with city, including topping of tree that should have been allowed to spread out so they can shade the Parking spaces
- Even if city had not attempted enforcement, this issue was written about in the DavisVanguard in 2018- so the landlord could not have aware that his tree neglect issue is of community concern. See: “Will City Enforce Its Building Code on Trees At Oakshade?” (February 2018 DavIS vanguard)
Approving this rezone is a discretionary action and city council does not have to grant approval without requirement land lord at least bring his property in compliance with 1990’s ordinance – and agree to requirements to assure not further recidivism on their decades of neglect.
We won’t go back: Leveraging off the DISC Negotiations
The city council should update the Development Agreement (DA) for Oakshade with the same tree protections like those included in DA for DISC 1 (2018) and DISC 2 (2020)- and even Target (2010).
- “A plan accepted by the City Arborist should be submit to city by the Landlord with a revised landscape/irrigation plan. This plan should show a plan to bring parking lot up to 50% share requirement in 15 year. This Plan must be submitted and accepted within 120 days of approval of the DA rezone. The tree planting component of this plan shall be a releasable-in-hard copy public document so citizens can monitor compliance.”
- “Landlord agree to a one-time initial tree inspection by city arborist or his designee, before any before new occupancy permit are issued after 3/1/2025 to assure that the new landscape plan is complied with, (e.g. trees replaced/ replanted per new landscape plan, and all irrigation system is operating to support the tree. )”
- The landlord agrees to a plan to assure maintenance of trees going forward in compliance landscape plan. Landlord agree to reimburse the city when it conducts periodic landscape/tree care and irrigation inspections. This shall be done by city arborist or designee in years 1-2-3 5-8-10 and every 5 years thereafter assure tree care is done in compliance with the landscape plan to reach and sustain the “50% shade in 15 years” requirement. The inspection report by city raise issues and confirm previously raise issues were address (dead or compromised trees, poor pruning, broken sprinklers, etc). Non- resolution of issues can be grounds for city’s Director of Community Development to block issuance of future building or occupancy permits by the city until these issues raise are rresolved. If landlord challenges issues raised, they can be appeal to the tree commission.
These are not radical new ideas. The Target Shopping Center (“2nd street Crossing”) Mall DA also requires annual inspect by an arborist and the Dan Ramos, developer of DISC agreed to this with the city in 2020 in his DA.. These may have been before Staff members and Director Sheri Metzker times, but they are still “best practices.”
We should not go back.
These three requirements are especially important if gas station are allowed here, Gas stations in Davis are notorious for engaging in tree topping and neglect without consequence- i.e. violation of their landscape plan. See the recent illegal tree topping at Shell station at Anderson x West Covell) or the Shell station at Richard near the freeway.
I also suggest city should do a site review to adding requirement for other low cost CAAP-aware changes like adding, such as non-tesla EV charging, improved bike parking and review of pedestrian access. Many of bike racks are of outdated unsecure style and there is an inadequate in number.
* * *
I apologize to city for not raising this earlier. Planning Department did not reach out to me or other well-known tree stakeholder in the city who would have been aware of tree issues at this development. I hope city council, with it heightened concern for community involvement note this oops to staff for not preemptively engaging well know stakeholder so avoid issues like this not surfacing at before the final public hearing..
* * * *
Just as we should be updating zoning for a changing retailing climate, so we should be should upgrading our old Davis shopping centers to comply with CAAP-driven improvements to protect Davis quality of life.
Thank you Lorax (Alan Hirsch) for bringing this to our attention and all the good work you otherwise also do for our treescape in Davis.
The City Council must require the developer to comply with the Parking Lot Tree Ordinance as a condition of any rezoning they request. Not requiring this allows an uber-wealthy out-of-town developer to shirk their commitments to the City and to the planet's climate. We'll see if the current Council has a spine or not when this matter comes before them on Tuesday.
Posted by: Alan Pryor | August 26, 2024 at 03:06 PM
I'm a fan of trees, but I'm not sure it is a good idea for Davis (that already makes it hard to do business in town) to push to make it even harder for a landlord (with a center that is already more than half empty) to do business (and create sales tax revenue for the city).
P.S. I'm wondering if the guy that "forecast that half Davis’s summer days will be over 100 degree in 50 years" also forcast that we would have 15 days over 100 last year, LESS than the ~20 days over 100 we had in 1973 (or if he prediced the snow in Tahoe last weekend)...
Posted by: South of Davis | August 26, 2024 at 04:22 PM
In regard to South of Davis' comment, I believe he's referring to this (which I also "noticed"):
"It is forecast that half Davis’s summer days will be over 100 degree in 50 years.'
Yeah, I'm wondering what the source of that is. Perhaps it's transposed, and actually refers to - 100 "50-degree days".
Seems like that's true in winter, at least.
But there is not doubt that the planet is heating, despite the "Cool August Nights" recently. This can be seen at the earth's poles, in regard to glacial melting.
But if you REALLY want to see an "unshaded parking lot", I'd refer anyone to the Home Depot or Walmart parking lots in Woodland. Then again, if the vehicles in those lots melt - isn't that a "good thing" in regard to climate change?
For sure, I plan to be dead within 50 years, regardless. And truth be told, most people do as well.
Posted by: Ron O | August 26, 2024 at 04:45 PM
The idea we need to warp down environmental regulation to get growth is easy logic
but we have tested that hypothesis— we have decades of neglect regulation around trees in Davis and I don’t see the benefits in more retail.
I suggest there is plenty of money in our society to have nice things if we just make them a priority.
Posted by: Alan Hirsch | August 27, 2024 at 08:25 AM
"The idea we need to warp down environmental regulation to get growth is easy logic"
Why does one need to "get growth" in the first place? Isn't the very concept of never-ending growth at odds with sustainability? That might be a good question to ask of anyone who believes in "sustainable development".
(Not just referring to actual, physical developments - but the concept of never-ending economic growth itself.)
Posted by: Ron O | August 27, 2024 at 09:44 AM
Absolutely, the regulations should be enforced.
Reducing heat Islands is crucial, and it's nice to get a shaded parking spot. But how does 50% coverage really work with the latter if people don't actually park in that 50% of the lot, or walk all the way across the parking lot (does anyone actually use the shaded walkway?)
Isn't the 50% shade law designed, in large part, to preserve these stupid, typically oversized free storage spaces for private vehicles?
With this shopping center specifically, why is it not being rezoned so there can be housing here? It's rather close to campus and Downtown. It's obviously a very short walk to a lot of services, and not so much further by foot to Kaiser. Wouldn't this be better location for the denser housing planned for the Shriner project?
It seems like no one's thinking that way. I've mentioned the idea for years and people lazily respond with "private property... Blah blah blah blah".
The result is that, at the literal end of the day (since both items are on this evening's agenda), we have a gas station possible at this location, to assist people in driving to see their friends at Shriners.
Posted by: Tuvia ben Olam | August 27, 2024 at 11:17 AM
Clarification: All the commercial zoning can remain or be modified...BUT a gas station is also a problem because who wants to live next to that? The parking lot would be downsized, remaining areas would remain on the surface
and would be under the new housing... And as many trees as possible! Very very little parking for residents.
Posted by: Tuvia ben Olam | August 27, 2024 at 12:05 PM
As an "out of town landlord" (when we moved "out of town"/"South of Davis" in 2011 the Davis home we bought in 2006 was worth less than we paid so we rented it rather than selling it at a loss) I'm wondering why it is important to point out that the Oakshade Landlord is "out of town"? Is this suposed to make us not like them? Am I a bad person since I ride my bike from outside the city limit to fix things at my rental property (I recently cleared a dishwasher drain line with a garden hose). I have no idea who owns "Oakshade" but I do know that less that 1% of centers that big have a "sole owner" (and even less than 1% make the names and home address of ALL the owers public) so I'm wondering if Alan has seen who actually owns the center or if he is just assiming it is an out of town "owner" since the tax bill is sent to a management company outside Davis. P.S. The photo in the article shows the Tesla charging parking lot and I forget if we are suposed to be happy that we have electric car charging in South Davis or mad that we have Tesla chargers (since a majorTesla stockholder is not deleting all slightly right of center posts like the Twitter guys did)
Posted by: South of Davis | August 27, 2024 at 09:46 PM
TBO say: "Wouldn't this be better location for the denser housing planned for the Shriner project? It seems like no one's thinking that way. I've mentioned the idea for years and people lazily respond with "private property... Blah blah blah blah". "
So, thinking "that way" means 'Central Government Planning and Ownership of All Property' (and planned/managed by the angels) ? Or did you have something else in mind?
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | August 28, 2024 at 07:05 PM
ACM: As preserving a relatively central large space with a huge parking lot that's mostly empty less than 10 minutes by bike or existing transit to campus or downtown or the train station while we develop a peripheral project that connects best to Sacramento and shopping in Woodland's periphery is moronic planning.
Short of your much feared full communism, what can we do so we can incentivize the transformation of this valuable property as mixed use?
More conservatively, is the landlord or new or expanding tenants responsible for any improvements on Cowell Boulevard, repaving of the Pole Line multi-use path, or safer access for people who live in the new housing on Research Park Drive? If not, will they choose to support these things??
Posted by: Tuvia ben Olam | August 29, 2024 at 11:21 PM
How about looking at a Win-Win solution? Allow PV solar panels over parking areas with trees at perimeter . Less maintenance , more shade and immediacy, less risk of damage to vehicles, less wet slippery leaves in winter. Benefits landlord and tenant with cheaper electric service and protects against blackouts and rotting food with addition of batteries (at Landlord/Tenant option.) Easier for city to enforce and keeps that asphalt surface temperature down.
It is an option in many jurisdictions that seems to be accepted well by many developers and requires no use of water which is becoming a scarce resource.
Posted by: Alan Hill | September 05, 2024 at 05:15 PM