The Davis Short Term Emergency Aid Committee (STEAC) provides immediate short-term assistance with basic necessities to Yolo County families and individuals whose income falls below the poverty level. That assistance may include help with rent, utilities, furniture, clothing, food and other basic necessities.
Currently, they have facilities that are located in Davis at 504 Fifth and 512 Fifth. Currently those sites are owned by the city.
STEAC is proposing construction of a new modular building that would be installed on the site, and the parcels would be merged into a single lot.
The current configuration has a garage structure on the site that is used as a clothing closet, and a manufactured building that has been on the site for over twenty years which serves as the food closet.
STEAC proposes to remove these existing structures and replace them with a new, custom built, manufactured building. The new structure would be engineered for food storage with refrigerators, provide additional space for clothes storage, washer and dryer, and a bathroom for volunteers.
The existing house on the property will remain and continue to be used by the cold weather shelter. The project would also include new landscaping in front of the new modular along D Street.
In the process of doing so, STEAC is proposing to remove one existing oak tree, one walnut tree, and four palm trees in order to accommodate the modular building.
Residents in Old North Davis, the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed site, object to the plan.
In October, the developer attempted to make some revisions. This included a reduction of the length of the building to 80 feet down from the preferred 100 feet, “in order to be able to leave one of the Canary Palms in place.” They also said they will attempt to move three of the other Canary palms.
They also said they would “change the building siding on the Western-most module (50′ of the 80′ total length) to horizontal lap siding – to match the look of the siding on the ‘cold weather shelter’ house and the neighboring house to the South.”
However, these changes were not sufficient to gain neighborhood support for the project.
In February, Steve Tracy, President of Old North Davis Neighborhood Association, wrote a letter noting that the residents have been placed “in a very awkward situation.”
“Many residents of Old North Davis have supported STEAC with our personal time, or donations of money or goods,” Mr. Tracy writes. “But we are bewildered that a good organization so dedicated to community service would attempt to do something so damaging to the surrounding neighborhood.”
“Residents of Old North Davis are appalled at the proposal by STEAC to build a massive storage shed at the corner of Fifth and D streets,” he writes. “This will be blight at first sight on a very prominent corner in a corridor soon to receive a makeover costing well over $1 million.”
The Vanguard was not able to obtain from the city an exact external rendering of the plan, but one of the huge objections to plan is that residents consider the planned building to be “ugly” and out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.
Writes Steve Tracy, “The original proposal was for a 24-by-100-foot plywood-sided portable building, since scaled back to 80 feet long. At either size, this unadorned shed will become an instant eyesore in a traditional neighborhood where we have worked for years to protect and enhance the history our older structures represent.”
That size, residents note, is about 50% bigger than many of the houses in the neighborhood.
STEAC, they claim, is asking something that current rules, based on sound planning practices, would not allow a private land owner to get away with. They argue that this would, in effect, throw current design guidelines aside – many of which were hard fought.
“Roughly 10 years ago, dozens of residents worked for months to craft the Davis Downtown and Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines, which apply to this city-owned piece of land,” Mr. Tracy wrote in letter. “This proposed structure violates both the broad intent and many specific requirements of those guidelines, which were prepared under the lead of the Community Development Department.”
He notes, “Now that same city staff has embraced this project and dismissed the design guidelines with a simple sleight-of-hand phrase.”
Staff writes, “Although likely to be used long term, the modular building will be considered a temporary building.”
Steve Tracy argues, “No resident or property owner would be permitted to construct anything like this proposed monstrosity. New development under these design guidelines must be crafted to be sensitive to surrounding properties, which this project is not.”
Andrea Montalbano noted, “I have great compassion for the mission of STEAC. I understand the difficulty nonprofit organizations have raising funds to provide their necessary facilities.”
However, she said that she was the architect of the largest homeless shelter in Alameda County, Crossroads, “One of the most important design elements of Crossroads was respect for the surrounding neighborhood. In order to ensure that the neighbors were respected, we held neighborhood meetings to listen to their concerns and adjusted the design accordingly.”
She continues, “We worked hard to find funding for the use of high-quality materials and did everything we could to ensure that the building was in harmony with its surroundings by designing thoughtfully. The resulting project had a positive effect on the community.”
“Unfortunately, STEAC has done none of these things,” she argues. “The building as proposed is badly sited on the lot. It uses the cheapest, lowest-quality materials possible. It has a very negative impact on its next-door neighbor. It disregards completely the design guidelines required by the zoning code. It will be an eyesore and will degrade not just its neighborhood but the entire city, as it will be prominent and visible from one of the most traveled streets in Davis.”
One of the neighbors told the Vanguard that, while old North Davis residents have spoken out on a number of issues that impact them, they have never been seen to be more angry than about this proposal.
The neighbors feel that they are in an untenable position going against STEAC, an organization whose mission and activities they support in the area adjacent to their neighborhood. As stated, many of them have supported STEAC over the years with goods, time or money.
At the same time, they cannot believe that a community service organization would want to do this to the community and the immediate neighborhood.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The City of Davis allowed several DACHA homes to remain empty for over one yesr while homeless women and children were on waiting lists for shelter. Shame on them.
David, what’s with the one-sided, slanted reporting? It’s inaccurate and misleading. The FACT is some neighbors are concerned with the STEAC project and some are supportive. I’m also wondering why you take some of the factual mistatements of the concerned neighbors at face value instead of setting the record straight. For example:
“That size, residents note is about 50% bigger than many of the houses in the neighborhood.”
The statement is an apples to oranges comparison. What you fail to report is the project is commercial, not residential, and is located in Downtown, not North Davis. It’s zoned mixed-use and is surrounded by structures many times larger than the proposed STEAC facility (the firehouse, the churches, the apartment and office buildings). Hello?
PS: And what about your concern for the “other” Davis?
-Michael Bisch (neighbor)
David, what’s with the one-sided, slanted reporting? It’s inaccurate and misleading. The FACT is some neighbors are concerned with the STEAC project and some are supportive. I’m also wondering why you take some of the factual mistatements of the concerned neighbors at face value instead of setting the record straight. For example:
“That size, residents note is about 50% bigger than many of the houses in the neighborhood.”
The statement is an apples to oranges comparison. What you fail to report is the project is commercial, not residential, and is located in Downtown, not North Davis. It’s zoned mixed-use and is surrounded by structures many times larger than the proposed STEAC facility (the firehouse, the churches, the apartment and office buildings). Hello?
PS: And what about your concern for the “other” Davis?
-Michael Bisch (neighbor)
I have no problem with this project. The lot is being used as a parking lot for the shelter and overflow for the Fire Department. The two little buildings being use by STEAC are no more than shacks. The parking lot is deteriorating, the buildings are decrepit. This building will be an improvement.
Mike Harrington owns the houses to the south and I suspect is behind most of the protest.
From the pictures, it looks like Mike’s fence separating the properties is not on the property line. It looks like Mike is using part of the City lot. Is the new building correcting that? Or is still allowing him to situate his fence into the City lot?
What I find disapointing is ONDNA and the Vanguard choose to frame the project as an us vs. them and as a win/lose proposition. That’s a choice they’ve made, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Here is the way I chose to frame it before the City Council a couple of weeks ago:
Good evening, City Councilmembers. My name is Michael Bisch. I’m a Downtown resident. I have a Downtown office. And I have Downtown business interests.
A few thoughts you might consider while you deliberate the STEAC project:
First and foremost, Downtown, according to the General Plan is the primary business, cultural, and social gathering place of the community. The Downtown is for the use and enjoyment of the entire community, including those residents who have met with some misfortune or are otherwise in need. This is not my plan, this is THE PLAN, the community’s plan.
Secondly, part of what makes our Downtown special is the diversity of products and services provided to residents and visitors. These products and services are provided by both for profit corporations and non-profits. We have any number of very special non-profits in our downtown, large and small. I and others, including city staff, have made a personal effort to attract more non-profits to downtown, not less. These non-profits and associations include STEAC, Davis Downtown, Davis Chamber of Commerce, Farmers Market, Food Co-Op, Yolo Federal Credit Union, Meals On Wheels, SPCA, Radiate Art, Davis Music Collective, the US Bicycle Hall of Fame, Davis Roots, the list goes on and on. Each of these non-profits adds, not subtracts, from our vibrant downtown.
And finally, I too share the aesthetic and architectural concerns of the STEAC project opponents. Indeed, I’ve been known to advocate a time or two for Downtown aesthetic and architectural improvements both public and private. But I also advocate for unmet community needs. Given a choice between aesthetics and meeting community needs, I choose the needs of the community. Fortunately, we don’t need to make a choice in this matter. We can have both. Instead of creating impediments to the STEAC project, why not seek solutions to the aesthetic and architectural issues? I urge those that are concerned about these issues to be part of the solution, not the problem. Here’s the first $100 check. Let’s raise the rest together. We can go the traditional route by dialing for dollars or use more contemporary methods such as carrot mobs or a kickstarter. In fact, we can propose the STEAC project to the new online Davis Barn Raising crowdsourcing platform that is about to launch.
We don’t need to overcomplicate this by creating a Taj Mahal out of the project. As you can see from strolling about the Downtown these days, we have some very creative artists in the community who can make a lot out of very little. What was once the decrepit shed on 3rd street is a great example. And some strategic landscaping can do the rest.
-Michael Bisch (neighbor)
Too bad we don’t have more peripheral development to provide alternative sites for organizations like STEAC to acquire adequate storage space.
However, I support the project. I think those that are against it are against almost any change that does not benefit them directly.
[quote]Andrea Montalbano noted, “I have great compassion for the mission of STEAC. I understand the difficulty nonprofit organizations have raising funds to provide their necessary facilities.”
However, she said that she was the architect of the largest homeless shelter in Alameda County, Crossroads, “One of the most important design elements of Crossroads was respect for the surrounding neighborhood. In order to ensure that the neighbors were respected, we held neighborhood meetings to listen to their concerns and adjusted the design accordingly.”
She continues, “We worked hard to find funding for the use of high-quality materials and did everything we could to ensure that the building was in harmony with its surroundings by designing thoughtfully. The resulting project had a positive effect on the community.”
“Unfortunately, STEAC has done none of these things,” she argues. “The building as proposed is badly sited on the lot. It uses the cheapest, lowest-quality materials possible. It has a very negative impact on its next-door neighbor. It disregards completely the design guidelines required by the zoning code. It will be an eyesore and will degrade not just its neighborhood but the entire city, as it will be prominent and visible from one of the most traveled streets in Davis.”[/quote]
This doesn’t look like a NIMBY response to me. I think they are merely saying that the reality is that this will be a permanent structure, and as such the city should invest in making it at least minimally aesthetically acceptable, which I think is reasonable. (I do not live in the neighborhood).
[quote]What I find disapointing is ONDNA and the Vanguard choose to frame the project as an us vs. them and as a win/lose proposition.[/quote]
I don’t view it that way. I presented the proposal and the concerns that the President of the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association have about the project. I assume that if the neighbors sit down at the table with the city and the project proposers they can reach some sort of compromise.
Frankly wrote:
> I think those that are against it are against
> almost any change that does not benefit them
> directly.
I think that (most of) those that are against the project want to have less homeless people (who according to Fr. Joe Carroll 99% of have mental, drug and/or alcohol problems) in the area whey they live and their children play…
I’m not trying to bash the homeless and got to know Fr. Joe Carroll (see link below) volunteering with him (30 years ago). After he answered my question about what percentage of the homeless have mental, drug or alcohol problems he added “and we help them anyway”…
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/11/father-joe-celebrates-a-birthday-and-his/
It is my guess is that many of the neighbors know that whenever anyone adds more services for the homeless to a location that they get more homeless at that location (kind of like if you leave more bird seed in your back yard you will get more birds) and they are just pretending to care about the “architectural” issues since it is not PC to hate the homeless…
P.S. I took the train in to town last week from Richmond (where I transferred from BART) and I was surprised to see such a large homeless encampment along the tracks as we were slowing to the stop in Davis. I guess that is where all the homeless that used to live behind the College Square/Ivy Town apartments before they cut back all the bushes along the tracks…
“I think that (most of) those that are against the project want to have less homeless people (who according to Fr. Joe Carroll 99% of have mental, drug and/or alcohol problems) in the area whey they live and their children play…”
Except all it is is storage, it has nothing to do with the rest of what STEAC does in that location.
If it’s just storage, why don’t they do multiple modular buildings instead of one big one? That would make it easier to landscape it for screening, allow them to preserve the trees, and probably configure it in a manner less disturbing to the neighbors.
my view is that the neighbors have a reasonable complaint. i think don makes a solid suggestion. sit everyone down in a room and come up with something everyone can agree with.
bisch, why are you trying to run people over on this?
David wrote:
> Except all it is is storage, it has nothing to do
> with the rest of what STEAC does in that location.
If they need MORE storage it makes sense to think that it is because they want room for MORE food and MORE clothes for MORE homeless…
Does anyone think that they are making the place bigger to help LESS homeless people?
It is not just storage. It is a food and clothing closet – where people can come and pick up groceries and clothing in an emergency. It needs bathrooms for the “customers” and volunteers who staff it. It needs air and heating, electricity for refrigerators. It needs to be easily accessible to people who may not have a car. It has a location. It just needs a better temporary building than the decrepit garage and storage shed that it is currently using. The City isn’t going to want STEAC to build a permanent building on its property. The official complaints are coming from blocks away. The zoning is mixed use – commercial/residential. The proposed building can be landscaped and trees planted, etc. It will have the same siding as the other house on the property.
I believe that everyone has sat down to discuss this. The proposal is for STEAC to leave and find a different location.
Here is the description of the project (scroll down to the letter from Cass Sylvia):
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20120717/Packet/04B-STEAC-Fee-Waiver-Request.pdf[/url]
[i]I believe that everyone has sat down to discuss this. The proposal is for STEAC to leave and find a different location.[/i]
From a perspective of facility appropriateness, I agree that a different location/property should be considered. But if the argument for relocation is based on not wanting homeless people downtown, then those demanding this should singled out as pitting one neighborhood against another.
Making the case that we should rid ourselves of homeless people because a higher percentage have mental health problems is comparible to an argument to rid ourselves of black people because of a higher percentage are involved in crime. Both of these arguments seem equally reprehensible to me.
The location is City property. What would you have located there instead?
STEAC has had very little impact on the surrounding neighbors. It is not a “drop in” facility, operates on an appointment basis only, has no “lines”, has very low traffic/parking impacts, does not have homeless people lingering about. It is run so low-key that it is reasonable for people to assume that it “is just a storage facility.” But it has a huge impact on helping families in crisis – who need basics (groceries, clothing, rental deposits, utility payments, temporary housing, etc.) to not become homeless.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/STEACletter.png[/img]
Without seeing the design plan and the proposed landscaping, it is difficult for me to assess whether this would truly be a blight on the neighborhood. We shouldn’t just take it for granted that it will be done effectively. Neighbors might well have legitimate concerns about the appearance. If we still had a design review commission, this kind of thing would be resolved there. As it is, usually it is staff working with the project proponents. That is a process less likely to be responsive to neighbors’ concerns.
STEAC plans to repave the parking lot for the City, which is in poor condition. If the landscaping around the building were similar to Mike Harrington’s commercial property next door, would that satisfy?
Ordinarily a project developer has to submit a design plan to the city. There should be a plan for review on this project somewhere.
Don Shor, thank you for your constructive suggestions. It can and should be done in a way that blends in, maybe using 2 smaller buildings rather than one monstrous one. And the trees should be worked with/around rather than destroyed. This can not be that hard, it’s just that one monstrous building is the easiest and cheapest to put up, but there are other issues worth satisfying.
Micheal Bisch said ” Fortunately, we don’t need to make a choice in this matter. We can have both. Instead of creating impediments to the STEAC project, why not seek solutions to the aesthetic and architectural issues? I urge those that are concerned about these issues to be part of the solution, not the problem. Here’s the first $100 check. Let’s raise the rest together. “
I agree!! If they need to raise funds to build a more suitable facility for the lot (leave the trees) and the neighborhood, let’s raise some funds.
I think I can safely say that most of the people on this blog would object to someone parking a double wide trailer house on any lot down the block from where they bought their home and currently live. You can call this a
[b][i]”new, custom built, manufactured building'[/i][/b],but the reality is that it is a modular trailer, and given that STEAC will try to get the biggest bag for their buck, it will probably look just like a bigger version of the little ones you see parked at some of the construction sites. Since the consensus is that this will be there permanently, it should be a permanent structure built from the ground up and not be an eyesore. In the long run it will cost much more to rent/purchase a temporary trailer and then have to later build a permanent structure, than to just build a permanent structure at the beginning.
[quote] Since the consensus is that this will be there permanently, it should be a permanent structure built from the ground up and not be an eyesore. In the long run it will cost much more to rent/purchase a temporary trailer and then have to later build a permanent structure, than to just build a permanent structure at the beginning.[/quote]
The City Planning department has been housed in a temporary building for years and no one from A Street has ever complained, that I know of. A large portion of the High School is in temporary buildings and there are temporary buildings visibly at nearly every school in town. No one in any neighborhood has complained. AYSO headquarters is in a temporary building at Community Park behind Vets Memorial and the Library and there was not one complaint when that was installed. I wouldn’t consider these unsightly and feel that they serve to fill a community need, while temporarily housed on school district or City property.
There are many desirable qualities of a self storage facility which you shall be on a look out for. You shall check the facility for the proper lighting and cleanliness, proper fencing, installed and functional access control devices, presence of security personnel in adequate numbers, the way the goods are stacked and stored, accessibility of your space self storage, communication facilities and measures taken by the storage facility for protecting goods against humidity and extreme temperature conditions.
edmonton storage