It has been about five or six months since Kemble Pope, the former Chamber CEO and public liaison for Trackside, first approached me about their proposed project. It was in the very conceptual stage but was a proposal about redevelopment of a very underutilized and old facility in a prime location just east of the railroad tracks on the north side of Third Street.
We received a heads up about the application being turned in and knew that the Davis Enterprise would be running a quick story on it. However, given other priorities in the news this time of year and the fact that Kemble Pope was away on a pre-planned family vacation, there did not seem to be urgency to run the story just to run the story. So we held off but, of course, when 13 people show up to public comment, the dynamics change.
This week I will be meeting with Mr. Pope and hope to get some answers to key questions, particularly on the reasons they had to go up to five and a half stories, and also to understand where the miscommunication occurred in terms of the public outreach.
This column, therefore, represents my first thoughts on the project with the belief that, as more information comes available, my view will be updated.
As my board member Tia Will put it, 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.”
The biggest challenge for the city of Davis going forward is to reconcile several different conflicting city goals. First, we have growth restrictions on the periphery and, while I have been an advocate for building modest sized, 200-acre innovation parks, I have been an opponent at this time in continued peripheral housing developments.
But, with the city needing more rental units and more office space in the core, ways that we can densify the core while maintaining our borders are ones we should pursue. However, with densification comes neighborhood concerns. People get mocked and accused of NIMBYism, but this is people’s homes, their lives, their investments. It is understandable that people will object to massive changes that will impact their lives. We need to be respectful of those concerns and not simply dismiss those concerns as NIMBYism.
Nevertheless, we can identify clear needs for the community and for changing this particular property.
The existing facility in the proposed project location is a clear example of underutilized space – there are single-story buildings with large amounts of space taken for the alleyway and parking. It is hard to imagine a worse use of existing space than what is there currently.
That said, I agree with the neighbors at this time that six stories (really five and a half) is too radical a change in the transition zone. I think when I originally met with Mr. Pope, I was thinking three or four stories. I don’t agree with the neighbors that two stories is ideal – given the trees and the distance from the housing, I don’t think three or four stories is as much as they think.
There are also cost concerns that the neighbors (for good reason) are not considering. Some people that I have spoken to believe that the applicants probably needed to go up to six stories for the project to pencil out. That will be a key question. Hopefully there is room to compromise there.
Second, part of what I find alluring about the project proposal is that this isn’t some large, out-of-town land developer. This really is a “crowd-sourced” development project.
We are talking about a very unique approach with a group of local investors, most of whom are far from wealthy: 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.
These are people who live in our community and have done so for years. These are people who care about our community. I may not always agree with any of them about what is best for the community, but I do not question their commitment to the community.
We have to be mindful that, because this is not a group with deep pockets, we might not have the leverage to demand the kinds of changes we might ordinarily want in a project of this sort. For example, the issue of parking concerns came up – I’m a big believer that to really achieve increased density in the downtown, we need to go down to create parking, as well as going up.
Unfortunately, with the loss of redevelopment, the expensive option of going down for parking is probably outside of our range, but it might behoove the city to look into potential grants to fund below-ground parking for this site.
However, that does lead to one of my concerns and it has to do with the role of Councilmember Lucas Frerichs. This is certainly not a personal criticism of Mr. Frerichs – a few years ago, he and his wife moved into their own small infill home on B St.
He has long been a supporter of infill development, this was a rare opportunity, perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to be part of a project of this sort. I appreciate the transparency that he has shown in this process and the opinion he sought from the city attorney that we excerpted from on Friday.
However, as much as he can recuse himself from decisions, I wonder if he can ever really disentangle the influence of being on council and having an active project before the city. From a legal standpoint, he looks clean, but from a practical standpoint there will always be questions, especially if this remains a controversial project with segments of the community. This is not a huge problem for either Mr. Frerichs or the project, but it is there and, if the project remains controversial, it will be something that opponents will point to.
From a positive standpoint this project has a lot of strengths. It is a far better and more efficient use for a prime location next to the downtown. It is not being put forward by out-of-town developers but rather by a group of citizens who are not running with hugely deep pockets.
Clearly, there were some missteps in communication with the neighbors, as well, that have to be cleaned up.
We agree with the neighbors that six stories is too high and too large a leap in a transition area, and would like to see a compromise between the six stories proposed and the two stories the neighbors want, which seems to be infeasible.
Finally, we again urge the city to start looking at the downtown as a whole rather than creating a patchwork of projects that come up as landowners seek to redevelop existing parcels – the problem with that approach is that we will have an inconsistent downtown, which is indeed what is happening.
If the project is out of compliance with various guidelines, now is probably a good time to review those guidelines to see if they still make sense.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“From a legal standpoint, he looks clean, but from a practical standpoint there will always be questions especially if this remains a controversial project with segments of the community. ”
The David Vanguard reaches a new low for standards of attack hit pieces. The bar has been lowered beneath the usual standards for public figures of legal, ethical or moral to something now vaguely described as a “Practical standard” whatever that may be.
Of course as you say “This is certainly not a personal criticism of Mr. Frerichs.” Actually it is. Its a personal cheap shot coupled with straw man innuendos described as “Segments of the community.”
“This is not a huge problem for either Mr. Frerichs or the project, but it is there and, if the project remains controversial, it will be something that opponents will point to.”
You mean opponents like yourself who pretend to remain neutral to protect your tax exempt status.
And Happy Father’s Day to you too… Like I said, I don’t think it’s a huge problem, but there are going to be complications that are unantincipated.
David, I would be surprised if those complications were truly unanticipated. The people involved in this project are both knowledgeable and smart. There are always going to be complications … and if the project is going to produce a positive end result for its investors, then complications that arise simply have to be dealt with.
Re: a five and one half story building:
Okay I haven’t lived in Davis for a while. Didn’t there used to be some sort of regulation about how many stories a residence or an apartment could be? Also, didn’t there used to be some sort of regulation re: the amount of stories a business could be?
So are you saying regulations now allow a 5 and one half story structure near the heart of Davis? When did that regulation change, or is my memory wrong?
Not 100% sure, but your memory isn’t wrong, per se, but perhaps not fully informed. There were ‘practical’ “regs” related to building height maximums were based in big part, on the lack of a “hook and ladder” piece of fire apparatus, and concerns about water pressure availability to fight fires of a multistory building over 4 stories. With changes in building codes, pretty universal use of fire sprinklers (using booster pumps, as necessary), etc., many of those ‘practical’ restrictions can be relaxed.
There were initially concerns re: the height of the USDA building, for example, but with a full fire sprinkler system, those concerns were ‘put to rest’.
There may have been, or are, height regs for aesthetics, etc., but am not familiar with those (if any).
It was mentioned to me that boundary drop is a game changer aswell as we have access to UCD’s hook and ladder vehicle.
David… we always had a H&L UCD piece of apparatus avail. We had “mutual aid” long before boundary drop. Find a valid reason to tout ‘boundary drop’. There are so many valid ones, you shouldn’t cite a bogus one.
The key, as I thought I pointed out, is the changes in building codes and the use of fire sprinklers.
Think. Understand.
A hook and ladder truck isn’t particularly useful when the height of a building exceeds available water pressure, including the booster pumps on a standard piece of FD equipment… called a “pumper”.
Gravity… not just a good idea, it’s the LAW.
The agreement with UCD was specifically mentioned to me by the city as a reason the Hotel Conference Center could now go up to six stories. This was a year ago.
Why? These are some of the same people who have made those same demands on other developments. Are we now to lower expectations because they ‘re a group of locals?
My guess is under these conditions, if they can’t afford to the changes, the project will get pulled – my comment has no bearing on what should happen.
So are you walking back your statements that this group of locals should get grants and/or policy relief?
So should this group be allowed to build a 5 to 6 story project to insure that their investment pencils out?
No, but they should be entitled to propose it. Have it vetted, and see whether it “pencils out”, financially aesthetically, quality of life, etc. for the larger community, but not just the immediate neighbors.
I disagree, the local neighbors are the ones who are the most impacted by a huge apartment building being slapped up in their community and should have the most say. It’s always convenient to say what’s best for the community when it’s in someone else’s neck of the woods.
“the local neighbors are the ones who are the most impacted by a huge apartment building being slapped up in their community and should have the most say.”
That is the classic – not in my backyard – type of attitude that pervades this town. The local neighbors certainly should have an opportunity to voice their objections, but ultimately the decision should come down to what is best for the City as a whole, not just the nearest neighbors.
BP… re-read my words… I did not say the neighbors should be ignored… I’d weight their concerns somewhat higher than the community as a whole, but I do think the project proponents should be allowed to get a fair analysis and discussion.
We haven’t even heard from all the neighbors… just those who are so opposed they mounted a “pre-emptive strike” on the project.
The proposal needs vetting. Fair review is not equal to automatic approval.
Get used to one or the other… build up or build out. Those are the two choices.
or, fill the moat with crocs…
the shoes, or the animals? both can be hideous.
I agree with Frankly. Those plastic shoes are hideous. 🙂
DG: The Davis Enterprise also reported Rev. Bill Habicht of Davis Community Church as an investor. Is this a complete list or did you redact specific names?
#me, David’s list contains 37 names. The number I have heard reported in prior stories was 39. Bill Habicht and one other, which may be Michael Bisch (see Enterprise article below) would make 39.
Hopefully, Greenwald will clarify. If Bisch is still involved, as current President of the DDBA there’s another COI issue.
Bisch’s business is real estate management. There is no current conflict of interest between his work and his DDBA role. Why would you see Trackside as any different from any of the other real estate properties he manages?
I have the same question, is Habicht involved or not?
The article states that this might be a once in a lifetime opportunity for Frerichs but also suggests the project might not pencil out if changes are required.
Once in a lifetime to make a pile of money, or once in a lifetime to participate in an infill project? Surely there’ll be lots of future infill projects.
The need for a concierge suggests this might be a long stay hotel or a bnb opportunity.