It began ominously with Alan Miller prancing up to the podium, in tow with props, singing an off-tune jaunt of Sesame Street’s “One of these things is not like the other.” In all fourteen neighbors, mostly residents of Old East Davis, came to Public Comment last night to talk about the proposed Trackside Infill project – all of them complaining that the proposed six-story development violates guidelines, is out of character with the neighborhood – which are mostly flats or two-story homes, and would harm community sightlines.
Located at the southwest corner of the city block bounded by 3rd/4th Street and California Northern Railroad’s short-line railroad (RR) and I Street, the quarter acre property represents “one of the largest infill opportunities in the Core Area of Davis.”
It is currently an underutilized site, with two commercial buildings, each one-story, that take up about half of the lot and the other half is private parking.
It also has a unique approach with a group of local investors, many of whom have deep ties to the community: Sandra & Philip Bachand, Jeremy Brooks, Joy Cohan, Jim Davis & Lori Schilling Davis, Carol & Bill Elms, Lucas & Stacie Frerichs, Steve & Teri Greenfield, Craig & Tracey Long, Bret Hewitt & Deborah Pinkerton, Matt Kowta, Mitch Mysliwiec & Michelle Millet, Justin Owens, Kemble & Katherine Pope, Sandy Paige, Bill Roe, Chuck Roe, Eric & Channa Roe, Jeff & Deb Stromberg, Craig & Michelle Stromberg, Eric & Pat Stromberg, Krista & Carson Wilcox, and Carri & Jay Ziegler.
In their project description, they write, “This project is being created by a collaborative design-build process with ongoing input from the company’s owners, many neighbors in Old East Davis and Downtown Davis, City Staff, community leaders and members of the Davis City Council.”
However, it is here where the project received criticism – not just for the height of the building, but also many of the neighbors claimed to have never been contacted.
Alan Miller said that in the Enterprise article on this development, the design process resulting from meeting with community members including neighbors. “This assertion was contested at our neighborhood meeting on Sunday where no one believed the neighborhood had been properly contacted, in fact the terms used to describe the attempt at the so-called outreach by the apparent liaison was: failed to follow through on meetings, some even said deceitful and lied, withheld information such as size and height…
“No attempt was made to contact the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association itself,” Mr. Miller said.
Tia Will told the council that she is “absolutely delighted at the thought of an upgrade to these buildings which are very old, clearly past their prime, and needing development.”
However, she was critical of the project as designed. “The proposal is to put in a six-story building in an area in which the maximal height of residences is two stories and many of them are one-story. I see this as a clear departure from the nature of the existing neighborhood.”
Ms. Will said that in recent years there have been a lot of respectful approaches to development which includes outreach from the developers to the neighbors. She said, “This (approach) has absolutely been lacking from this process as best I can tell. I see it as disregardful and disrespectful of the neighbors that are currently there.”
Robert Canning emphasized “the rather large size of the Trackside Development.” “Old East Davis does not need a new sunshade next to the railroad tracks,” he quipped. “It’s out of proportion and really out of character for Old East Davis. It goes against the guidelines that were drawn up and then revised within the last ten years.”
Valerie Jones and Cathy Forkas brought their own props, showing the disproportionate size of the proposed development compared to the housing sizes.
Ms. Forkas said she was contacted by Kemble Pope, the liaison to the developers, who described, she said, without drawings their proposed design. “When he told me about the height of the project, I told him I didn’t think the neighborhood would support anything that tall,” she said.
She said he seemed to want to “genuinely engage” on the project and said that the immediate neighbors had been contacted and “were onboard with the project.”
“I was taken aback when the Enterprise article appeared a couple of weeks later saying that there had been neighborhood input and that the plan had already been submitted to the city,” she said. She said those neighbors she talked to had not been contacted. “I may have been the only resident, that I was able to find, who had been contacted to discuss the project.”
Another neighbor pointed out the discrepancy between the current plan and the neighborhood guidelines. She notes that “large three bedroom and four bedroom apartment type houses are inappropriate.” Front elevations should be similar to those in the block.
They have concerns about how densification will impact parking. They are proposing 76 bedrooms, 37 dens, so over 100 rooms that could accommodate one to two people each, but only 51 parking places. She is concerned about the parking to accommodate both commercial and the residents.
“I’m very uncomfortable and would like to see a retraction from the Enterprise, because none of us were contacted outside of Cathy that we can confirm, to discuss this project,” she said.
Rhonda Reed, President of the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association, noted that many of her neighbors have never come to council to speak before. She said she is disappointed at the portrayal that the neighbors had been contacted in this process.
She is concerned that the developers did not engage the community in this process. “The concerns over mass and scale have been well-demonstrated tonight,” she told the council. “The transitional guidelines from the core area to the neighborhood area are very explicit in terms of how that should be done, this project isn’t even close.”
John Douthitt closed the comments told the council he has talked to people about the scale of the project – “They’re talking about a six story building up there. Uniform, everybody’s response is ‘you’ve got to be kidding,’ It’s not sort of like ‘maybe.’” He said, “There’s no possible way that anybody would think that made sense.”
They had originally planned to meet with some of the partners in the project after liaison Kemble Pope returned from vacation late this month.
Late last night, another partner, Steve Greenfield, told the Vanguard that “Kemble is the project’s public liaison and met with immediate project neighbors.”
He told the Vanguard, “We put a lot of thought into various vantage points in the neighborhood, and made a concerted effort to step back the building from many angles as well as prepared photorealistic imagery from public viewpoints to show the building’s massing in the context of other structures and the urban forest.”
He noted, “Even our Architect who prepared the photo sims was surprised at how little of the building will be visible.”
He added, “Our goal is to take a worn out, underutilized commercial site, located within the Core Area Specific Plan, currently zoned as Mixed Use and transform it into a vibrant, transit oriented, bicycle and pedestrian friendly site with high quality architecture that fulfills a variety of housing and retail needs in the downtown.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Even our Architect who prepared the photo sims was surprised at how little of the building will be visible.””
I was surprised too. What surprised me was the artful angles that were chosen to depict a six story building so as to appear to blend or fit in with the existing one story homes and structures. What is not portrayed in these very carefully chosen shots is the view from across the street, the loss of view of the surrounding homes, the loss of privacy of the surrounding homes, the loss of sunlight of the surrounding homes. Also not portrayed are parking and traffic impacts nor the loss of character of the existing neighborhood.
OK, Tia, you reject densification within the City [arguably, within the “Core”], and reject peripheral development. Got it.
Guess it gets down to oxen and goring…
In fairness to Tia, that’s not quite what I think she said. She seemed to favor redevelopment there but thought that this proposal was too high for that location. I think that’s a reasonable point.
No, what I got from Tia’s post is she doesn’t want a 6 story albatross slapped in the middle of one and two story homes. It’s a very interesting collection of investors to say the least.
An “albatross”… interesting allusion… beautiful in flight, clumsy on take-off and landing…
“view-scapes”? Yeah, right… how many folk in that ‘neighborhood’ gaze out at their homes, admiring the view?
“light”? how many solar panels will be affected? The proposed project may shield some adjacent residences from summer solar heat gain.
I really don’t care whether the project is built or not . I am concerned about hypocritical and self-righteous views being used to ‘leverage’ a proposal. Beyond “NIMBY”, more like “BANANA”.
The arguments against the project, as articulated to date, are specious at best. If I am correct, it has just been ‘submitted’ as a proposal, and has not been vetted (there may indeed be REAL reasons why it should be modified/rejected), but I find it interesting that Tia and BP (with David “defending’) all seem to be in agreement that it shouldn’t even be considered. Interesting implications for ‘free speech’ in even asking.
David… I take it that this was a “public comment” thing, and not an agenda item?
Correct. I did state during public comment, but probably should have added that the item was not agendized.
Sorry, missed the ‘public comment’ reference. Thanks for the clarification…
Yes hpierce, it was indeed part of general public comment before the consent agenda.
The evening’s entire agenda was prone to public comment …
— The Old East Davis neighborhood comments about the Trackside project.
— Item D of the Consent Agenda (which was pulled from Consent and concerned the Central Park Conceptual Design) prompting comments about the proposed design for the fire-damaged area around the oak tree at the north end of the shed. Residents of the B Street/University/A Street neighborhood objected to the noise pollution aspects of the west facing performance stage that is part of the design.
— The residents of Koso Street raising concerns about the design of The Villages at Willow Creek, between 500 and 700 Drummond Avenue.
— The latest chapter (perhaps the last) of the Paso Fino Planned Development and subdivision.
and
— The Review of the FY 2015-2016 Proposed Annual Budget
A pattern emerges when one looks at how effective those respective public comments were. Although the members of Council listened closely to the Central Park Conceptual Design comments and the Villages at Willow Creek comments, in the end, both those items ended in a “I move the staff recommendation” motion that was seconded and passed unanimously.
The story was different for Paso Fino, the Budget review and the Trackside Center comments. In all three of those situations, the respective public commenters came to the process early with public comments … long before any Council decision was impending. The early public comments made in each of those respective issues were followed up by thoughtful and sometimes tenacious attention to the process that the issue was being judged under (or by). The Trackside commenters are at the very beginning of their issue’s processing. They have a long road ahead of them, as do the project’s proposing principals. Time will tell how it all plays out, but what the Paso Fino process and the Budget Review process tell us is that if anyone takes a break from their due diligence the decision might end up being made while they weren’t paying attention.
The lesson to be learned
This looks like an excellent, well designed project that represents the type of redevelopment that we so desperately need to reinvigorate our core area. Expanding the downtown with buildings that offer both commercial and residential solutions is an excellent step forward. If we are not going to allow the City to grow outward, then we need to start growing up and this project looks like it will be a great start to that process.
You make good points… the existing use is, more than somewhat ugly. It’s also “dead’ at 5 PM. Personally, would like to see something like the Roe Building @ Fifth and G, and maybe one story taller with the associated increased residential use in/near the “Core”.
i agree with growing upwards and densifying, i still think six stories in a transitional area is too much. if we had a bunch of 8 story buildings in the downtown, then maybe.
I think it would be a better step forward if the developers would really sit down with the neighborhood to discuss it. Kemble may be the public “liaison” but he hasn’t been liaising very well.
We (the neighbors) agree that it would be nice to redevelop the site. But six stories is too much. It would be taller than the USDA building and it’s attendant parking garage. It would be the tallest building in Davis outside of campus. It goes against the design guidelines for the neighborhood (by height at least) and doesn’t seem very “transitional” from downtown to Old East Davis.
This is not a matter of NIMBY, we are happy to talk with them and help to design a project that would be vibrant and add to the City and neighborhood. The developers just have not been very collaborative as yet and to be honest, I hope we don’t see a repeat of the Cannery, where many promises were made and few have panned out.
The architect’s renderings are very helpful, but it’s hard to get a perspective on the size of this. Is there another six-story building in town for comparison?
Don… think you have to look to UCD for a six-story building… and this proposal, despite the detractors rhetoric, appears to be a 5 +.
Perhaps the project should be downsized a bit, but looks like the fix is in for the project to be all or nothing.
Instead of ‘downsizing’ the project, I would argue that the neighborhood needs to be ‘up-sized.’ There is no excuse for our continued inefficient use of land. The whole area along third street from the tracks to L street should be rezoned to allow multi-story mixed use and high density housing. In 50 years when PG&E corp yard finally moves out of town, the third street corridor will connect that new development with the downtown. It is time we start planning for the future instead of sitting in the dark being scared of it.
i think you have a point there too, though it’s not going to happen.
And your suggestion for what is to happen to Old East Davis? It already has a mix of small businesses, apartment buildings and single-family homes. The area has changed dramatically in the last fifty years (as has the City as a whole). Maybe the PG&E should be set aside for six story buildings. It might work better to put it at that end of the Third St. rather than where the developers would like it.
I agree 100% with Mark West. If you don’t want to build up, then get behind building out. If you advocate for neither, be prepared to accept all the denigration that you clearly deserve. And also accept that you have lost credibility to debate anything at all about city development. If you live in or near the core area of Davis downtown, count on your privacy and big lots and gardens disappearing over time as the downtown grows up. You want a small and dense city, that is what you will get.
Or have you been advocating for a small and dense city thinking you would be immune from the impacts going in that direction?
“And your suggestion for what is to happen to Old East Davis?”
I hope it continues to change and grow as the City grows, with a view towards the future rather than be stuck in the past.
If you take the area bounded by L street on the East, 8th street on the North and the railroad tracks on the West and South, and you look at all the structures included within, you will find fewer than a dozen that are worthy of preservation. Probably fewer than the number of fingers on your hand – even if you have lost a few. I have lived in this neighborhood for more than 50 years and there is absolutely nothing about it that deserves to be ‘frozen in amber.’
Don, I think Sproul Hall on campus is 9 stories tall. And Olson, next door, is two stories high. I don’t know their heights, but maybe looking at them could give a very crude sense of the height difference between the proposed story building and the nearby homes.
“Prancing”? Really, David?
You got the facts dead wrong on this one. I assure you, I may have been cavorting, bounding, skipping, romping and even — possibly — frolicking. But I was most certainly NOT “prancing”.
And I demand a retraction.
yeah – he DEMANDS IT!
Alan: We men “of a certain age” can derive some level of pleasure should we ever be observed as prancing. I can’t remember when I last pranced. Whether you literally pranced or not, the term suggests a level of energy expended; something to be proud of.
One other thing. When you demand something, almost never do you get it.
I am proud of my cavorting, bounding, skipping, romping and frolicking, all of which radiate from the energy of my glowing nuclear core.
. . . and I can’t believe we are discussing this.
I have ever demanded one thing: the removal of the MRAP from Davis.
Case closed.
“This looks like an excellent, well designed project that represents the type of redevelopment that we so desperately need to reinvigorate our core area.”
If this were truly in the “core area”, I might agree. What is needed is a clarification of “core”. The neighborhood in question is transitional, not core in my view and the proposal as it stands does not follow the guidelines for the Old East Davis neighborhood where it is located. I definitely favor redevelopment of this block as I stated in public comment. It is the size of the project with which I take exception, as well as the fact that no real outreach to the neighborhood occurred prior to the submission of the proposal.
For the core area to remain a vibrant part of the City, it will need room to grow, just like everything else. The problem here is not this project, but the backward looking neighborhood ‘guidelines.’ It is time to start looking forward instead of clinging desperately to that which is comfortable.
Oh Jesus Tia, and how is anyone supposed to consider your arguments credible with this? You are showing clear NIMBY, change-averse colors here. We can’t expand the city because you say we need to keep it small and dense. We can not redevelop with multistory buildings because you say it does not fit with the existing look and feel of the neighborhood.
I am really disgusted with this two-faced position. If you don’t want to grow peripherally, then get used to having high-rises in this medium-sized city of 72,000 people that will be 80,000+ people within 10 years.
Build this thing. And build more like them.
Though I do have a problem with there being any CC members or city staff involved or influential in planning and development as investors in any city development project.
i may not always agree with tia, but i believe you are calling her two-faced on a position that she’s completely consistent. first, she’s not obligated to support densification if she opposes peripheral growth. second, she’s not obligated to subscribe to your declaration of the population growth over the next year. and finally, she’s not being inconsistent by arguing that we can have densification but wanting to limit the height of buildings.
DP – UCD is growing by 600 students and about 25 staff per year. She can “not support” population growth, but it is a useless position given the obvious growth that has occurred and will occur.
How is anyone supposed to respect a person’s arguments when they are so completely irrational?
She wants no peripheral growth. She wants to severely constrain the number of stories that can be built.
Where the hell does she expect all the people to live? Where the hell does she expect them to shop in her car-less utopia?
I am getting real disgusted here with the arguments from people that position themselves as deep thinkers that want to be involved in the solutions for the problems we face… but only are critical. From my perspective it is looking like all my previous labeling of NIMBY, change-averse, no-growthers has been spot on.
[moderator]
But it also violates the Vanguard comments policy. Please stick to the issues and avoid name-calling.
Thanks.
she’s allowed to want no peripheral growth. you may disagree with her, but she’s allowed to have her opinion on the matter. if ucd is growing by 600 students a year, then they have an obligation to find a housing solution and so far they have not carried the water on this. they are still at the low end of uc’s in terms of on-campus housing, they’ve backed down on redeveloping solano park, and dragging their feet on nishi.
Well-said.
Below is a link to the “City of Davis Core Area Specific Plan Land Use Designations.”
If I am reading it correctly, the site in question is in a part of the core area designated retail with office. The only part of that area east of the tracks that is designated core area retail with office is the narrow strip of properties from Third to Fifth and west of the alley.
http://cityofdavis.org/media/Default/Documents/PDF/GIS/maps/Core%20Area%20Specific%20Plan%205-2013.pdf
I don’t know how to post that graphic here. If someone else knows how, could you please post it? Thank you.
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/CoreAreaSpecificPlan5-2013.jpg
hpierce
“Perhaps the project should be downsized a bit, but looks like the fix is in for the project to be all or nothing.”
I am not understanding your comment. Who do you feel has created a situation in which “the fix is in for the project to be all or nothing” ?
I think it would add to the aesthetics of the neighbourhood, but the NIMBY’s will, again, prevail, I have no doubt.
;>)/
i think a 3 to 4 story building works there. i agree it’s an under-utilized site, but i think the neighbors who sunk in their money have a point as well. compromise 3-4 stories, maybe 4 and a half .
DP regarding two of your posts (and not singling you out, but you made two important points). Perhaps folk are so “into” compromising, that someone has to propose a 5-6 story building, in order to get a 3-4 one. “Guidelines” refer to standards, that were “sorta” principles, in order to placate someone. Most are not based on rational thought (related to land use), and were more based on compromises and political expedience [or, more darkly, brought forward to justify the number of ‘planners’ we’ve had, to come up with ‘standards’, based on their philosophy, not necessarily the community’s.
Funny, that was my first thought when I saw this.
How many stories is the parking garage next to the movie theater?
Depends whether you define a “story” as a roof that’s used for parking and/or HVAC. Am guessing, drawing on memory, that both USDA/private parking garage, and the Cinema @ First and F are four story, with the top “story” being open parking, HVAC, etc.
i just think if we have reasons to change the guidelines, we should change them rather than ignore them when they are inconvenient to us.
why do we have guidelines in this town if we can capriciously ignore them?