The neighbors of Trackside posed the issue of the city’s planning by exception. They wrote that the neighborhood association “supports development on the Trackside site, as specified by the Design Guidelines.”
They continue, “The Trackside Partners, however, appear to have bought the Trackside property speculating that the city would change the zoning for their project, superseding the Design Guidelines.
“City of Davis planning can no longer operate on ‘zoning by exception.’ The city must stop changing zoning at will, throwing out hard-won agreements made with the time and effort of residential and business stakeholders. The purpose of zoning laws is to establish clear expectations for allowed uses of real property, certainty of investment and to minimize conflicts among neighboring properties.”
“Zoning by exception defeats this purpose,” they argue. “This is a citywide issue, and the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association is taking a stand, saying that zoning by exception stops here, before Trackside itself is built as yet another exception.”
This again brings the issue of the need for the city to look into updates, but there is a bigger issue looming than just a General Plan update.
The original Trackside development was planned at six stories. The neighbors objected to the plan on the basis (among others) that the development would put six stories next to single- and two-story residential housing, in violation of the Design Guidelines which specified a transition zone.
As the neighbors put it, “The Design Guidelines specified a transition zone for a reason: to create a gentle gradient between disparate land uses. Ignoring the value of a transition zone could result in undesirable juxtapositions and conflicting land uses.”
While the developers have come back with a new design that lowers the building to four stories, the neighbors came back arguing, “The newly proposed, four-story Trackside Center fails to make an appropriate transition in any direction.”
They argue, “The Design Guidelines clearly state that a two-story, mixed-use building — with a clearly set-back third story — is a desirable transition from downtown to the historic neighborhood. The new Trackside Center proposal is the same height as the Chen Building at Second and H streets. In addition, Trackside would have about twice the footprint and mass as the Chen Building.”
One of the posters in the neighbors’ article lays out the problem. First, they say that “simply because the city needs revenue doesn’t mean it needs to grow up. Personally I would rather maintain the character of the city and do what it always did until measure R, grow out.”
They add that “we agree on this anti-density thing but not the answer which, I believe is to grow out instead of what I believe is your position that we shouldn’t build much of anything.”
This is the biggest issue facing growth in the city of Davis.
Measure R has prevented the three proposed “peripheral” projects to be built. The city was eventually able to build Cannery, which did not require a Measure R vote. But that is the last of the large parcels that would allow for a housing subdivision to be built in the city.
That inability for the city to build out means that the city can look at redeveloping parcels – making them more dense, taller, so that there is less footprint but more density.
But, as we see with Trackside, we saw with Paso Fino, and we are seeing now with Sterling, densification brings out concerns – legitimate concerns with neighbors. The Vanguard visited some of those homes along I Street that would have the back of their property directly across the alley from the new development.
It is very clear that this will have a massive impact on a small number of homes. It is also very clear that most people in that neighborhood will not have direct impacts, but there are legitimate concerns here.
The city has serious housing needs. The city also has the need for commercial, retail, and research and development. With Measure R either directly or indirectly limiting growth outward there will be more calls, not fewer, to build up and more densely.
That creates impacts in the form of visual sight lines, and also noise and traffic on existing residential neighborhoods. These are the same concerns raised by the neighbors at the proposed Hyatt House hotel development.
The problem is clear. The answer is less so. Some have argued that you should not build up, you need to build out. Others have argued that not being able to build out means we must build up. Finally, there are those who have seemed to argue that we should do neither and let the university deal with growth impacts.
This is the critical issue – even more than the planning by exception issue – facing this community, and we need to figure out a common vision or approach to resolve it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“But, as we see with Trackside, we saw with Paso Fino, and we are seeing now with Sterling, densification brings out concerns – legitimate concerns with neighbors. The Vanguard visited some of those homes along I Street that would have the back of their property directly across the alley from the new development.”
Once again David, you avoid mentioning Lincoln40, furthering my position that, like many others in this city, you see Olive Drive as a sacrificial lamb to developers; even though it guts the Specific Plan for the area through rezoning like the rest. Why should my community receive any less concerns than others?
Olive Drive is an eyesore and anything that might upgrade that area is a blessing.
What may be an eyesore to you, is beauty to others. You and Frankly should move to Walnut Creek since you seem to like all their new and shiny buildings.
Not necessarily into new and shiny either. I’ve done a lot of travelling through Europe and loved the older communities even moreso than the “new and shiny”.
That said, I know an eyesore when I see one.
Odin wrote:
> You and Frankly should move to Walnut Creek since you
> seem to like all their new and shiny buildings.
Walnut Creek has not has a lot of recent development (the shiny buildings along 680 are not “new”) and has about the same number of people (less than Davis) as it did 30 years ago (vs. Davis that has about 50% more people)…
P.S. I don’t think Walnut Creek has any more mobile home parks, but there are still a few left nearby in Contra Costa County…
Couldn’t agree with you less BP. Olive drive is among the most beautiful, unique and interesting areas of our city, in mine eyes.
Different strokes for different folks.
AM: agree with your comments about Olive Drive. Some of us are looking at Olive Drive as a place to save and protect. In other words, it’s not just all about Lincoln40; it’s much bigger than that. And maybe it’s time to put the entire package to the voters …. do they want to protect the history and special place that is Olive Drive, and the poorest residents in our city, or blow it all up into luxury apts with resort atmosphere? I think the CC should show some leadership and start talking about the big picture. Instead, they just keep approving one overly big project after another, piecemeal, with all the separate impacts killing the livability of the surrounding areas.
i’m not following you odin, why do you think lincoln40 is relevant to a discussion of trackside?
It’s relevant because it’s basically the same argument. There is a specific plan being ignored, there is proposed rezoning, the building is 5 stories exceeding the limits for the area.
this gets to the actual point of the article -everyone wants the development not near them, but aren’t willing to grow on the periphery.
Building on the periphery also puts development near people.
Odin, is the discussed (but not as yet agreed to) grade separated crossing of the railroad right of way relevant?
The reason I ask is that given the geographic location of Slaters Court on Olive, if the crossing is constructed, the quality of life at Slaters Court would be significantly improved. The current volume of UCD student bicycle traffic pouring down Olive to the Olive-Richards intersection from The Lexington and The Arbors would be rerouted through the crossing and along a protected bike-ped path to the UCD Arboretum pathways (and on to the core campus). In addition UNITRANS would add Olive Drive to its routings. I believe both those improvements would be very good for Slaters Court (and all the other residents of Olive Drive). Am I wrong in that belief?
Looking forward to your response.
Matt
BP wrote:
> Building on the periphery also puts
> development near people.
I bet most in Wildhorse would not be happy if the “new” North Davis was just north of Wildhorse (not just south of Woodland)…
MW, how does that work? The only crossing I know of being discussed in relation to Lincoln takes people into the Amtrak Station and from there into downtown on existing surface streets. Via what route is there a “protected bike-ped path to the UCD Arboretum”?
While true South of davis, you can at least build in buffers and green space and trees between the existing houses and the new houses, whereas at Trackside you are plopping down a big tall building into an existing neighborhood with no possibility of buffer or transition.
Matt, let me reiterate, we are not objecting developing the lot. We are objecting that Lincoln40 defies the Specific Plan for the neighborhood, defies height restrictions, defies affordability statutes, and is a poor fit in a relatively low-income neighborhood. Sure we’d love the crossing, but as Alan mentioned yesterday, this method of developers offering up plans of massive scale in order to eventually get what they want has to stop. I don’t believe for one second that Highbridge can’t come up with a proposal that both fits in our neighborhood, and is one of compatible size. I call bs on developers selling you that they will somehow make a loss from their investment. They see themselves as losing if profit margin does not exceed a certain high percentage. It’s profit, but not the kind they really want. This is a San Francisco firm with loads of money trying to make more loads of money. Do I have a bias against developers? Hell yes. I’ve seen them turn the Sacramento region into a mess and have no reason not to expect the same thing here.
Who’s we? My understanding is that there was little to no opposition to the project at the last meeting.
Odin wrote:
> We are objecting that Lincoln40 defies the Specific
> Plan for the neighborhood, defies height restrictions,
> defies affordability statutes, and is a poor fit in a
> relatively low-income neighborhood.
I’m wondering if Odin would be OK with Lincoln 40 if it was not as tall or if he wants it smaller “and” to prohibit high-income students.
P.S. I’m also wondering if Odin would be OK of Cesar Chavez Plaza at 1220 Olive built a “Copacabana Style” pool for the “low-income” residents that live there.
CF, there were plenty of objections in the form of comments submitted addressing the EIR. I was hoping to meet the developers and instead met the EIR folks, and an architect.
Just to note, a number of my neighbors were there, but felt ignored. Some folks just feel too uncomfortable talking to lower income people.
SOD, we love students, there is ton of them in the neighborhood. Scale back Lincoln40 considerably from it’s current size, provide affordable housing for students who can’t afford to live elsewhere in town, and build an under crossing and we’ll be on board.
wtf does that mean?
Odin said . . . “I was hoping to meet the developers and instead met the EIR folks, and an architect.”
Odin, I was there as well. I was hoping that we would have a chance to meet, but I did not know who to look for. With that said, I am surprised to read the first sentence of your comment quoted above. One of the developers, I think his name was Paul, was there the whole time, actively conversing with the attendees and listening to the concerns and thoughts they were sharing. The EIR folks and City Staff were clearly the most numerous, but the developer, the architect and Bill Ritter and maynard Honesty made the “developer team” number four. I ended up in a very active conversation with the developer about the goals of the Davis Beyond Platinum Bicycle Plan as it relates to both the metric “parking spaces per bedroom” and any plans for a grade-separated crossing from the north terminus of Hickory Lane to the Amtrak Station. Paul (if that was his name) pulled in the architect to join our conversation. I’m sure he would have been glad to meet you and talk with you.
Odin said . . . “Just to note, a number of my neighbors were there, but felt ignored. Some folks just feel too uncomfortable talking to lower income people.”
This comment of yours also surprises me. Two of your neighbors, Peter and Jon were their first names, not only interacted with the EIR folks and the City Staff who were running the meeting, but also sat down and talked with Bill and Maynard at a table on the front porch of the building. If there had been more chairs, other people like me would have sat down and joined Jon, Peter, Bill and Maynard. I’m sure they would have welcomed you as well.
Multi-story multi-use (“growing up(wards)”) is in the Design Guidelines for the Downtown area itself. While the 1/2 block in Old East Davis between the alley and the railroad is now in the Core Area Plan with the blessing of the Old East Davis Neighbors, the western slice of our neighborhood is clearly designated as a transition zone. The building is quite appropriate in the downtown itself, not in Transition Zone East.
The slice has always been a part of the Core Area making the project in the Downtown. That designation predates OEDNA does it not?
I agree, and since the project site is downtown, the proposed building is appropriate. The transition zone between the downtown and the neighborhoods starts at the alley and proceeds to the east.
I joined OEDNA in 1988.
The Core Area Plan was brought over the tracks to include Core Transition East (which includes the Trackside site), with the blessing of the OEDNA, in 2006. At the time, we *mistakenly* assumed that the City would honor the Design Guidelines as part of the bargain of bringing Transition Zone East into the Old East Davis Neighborhood, the purpose of which was to allow mixed-use development to take place in this zone, which OEDNA approved of then and approves of today, as defined in the Design Guidelines.
Thank you, I stand corrected.
Core Area Specific Plan was adopted in 1996 and identifies the Trackside site as part of the downtown Core. The Design Guidelines sit atop the General Plan and Core Area Specific Plan but do not replace them except where the underlying plans were specifically amended. I have found no indication that the underlying zoning of the trackside site was changed in the process, but I am willing to learn otherwise. The design guidelines are used to inform decisions on the underlying zoning. According to our General Plan, the Downtown ends at the alley and the neighborhood starts going east from there.
No, Transition Zone East starts at the alley and proceeds one block to the west, not east. And Transition Zone East is specifically defined in the Design Guidelines.
I can post a map if someone sends it to me.
It is way beyond that David, i.e.: ” . . . a small number of homes”. A “zoning by exception” approval of a project with the massive impact of Trackside on homes sets a precedent, not only for the rest of Transition Zone East (about for times the footprint of Trackside), but for the entire city as well. Zoning by exception is a concern for all of Davis, as unwanted and poorly-planned-by-some-developers infill projects are granted under the guise of “we need to, because . . . “, while the City fails miserably to actually plan out the desired future form of the city in a sane way.
What we’ll get with this approach is giant, impactful mushrooms breaking through randomly as lots are bought up for monetary gain, and Davis will look like (fill in your least favorite ruined city here).
I consider the rest to be an indirect rather than a direct impact
True.
And indirect is just as real and just as impactful.
what’s interesting is that no one has addressed the issue laid out in the column – how do we address housing needs without either peripheral growth or densification?
DP, we are in agreement with that. The best path is density adjacent to the central core. This means the train tracks on the south and east.
Not enough property to do much of anything. Instead we need to expand the core.
There is no restriction on downtown core building up. As well, more reasonable and compliant versions of proposed projects may move forward.
It’s not a matter of all or nothing, it’s a matter of compatibility. Where the compatibility line is drawn is arguable, unless in fact as defined by Guidelines and zoning, in which case the argument becomes over whether the city should continue to plan by ‘zoning by exception’.
“There is no restriction on downtown core building up.”
That is not an accurate statement, there are many zoning restrictions regarding building height in the core depending on the parcels in question. In many places, taller buildings in the Core would require “zoning by exception,” just as would changing the current ‘parking minimums’ on projects, to parking maximums’ as has been advocated here. Not all exceptions are ‘bad,’ but declaring a moratorium on them certainly would be.
Agreed. And OEDNA has supported such waivers, such as recently for a technical detail change for the ACE Hardware building proposal, adjacent to our neighborhood (which the Trackside representative present appeared to strongly oppose).
However, when the super majority of those living adjacent to a project strongly object, that is not a situation in which to be granting major mass/scale exceptions.
Yes, there are restrictions on height in the core. That being said, most buildings in the core are 1-2 stores in height. The exceptions have been built recently and go up to four. The limits currently seem to be on available sites, not the zoning.
DP wrote:
> how do we address housing needs without either
> peripheral growth or densification?
Most (but not all) Davis home (and apartment) owners prefer the current system that “addresses housing needs” by increasing the rental price (and value) of housing that results in people that can’t (or don’t want to) pay the rent in town moving out and being replaced with (richer) people who will pay the ever increasing rents (or buy at the current super high prices)…
P.S. It is not PC to admit it, but after people discover that I am not PC they often will admit that they are happy that the high school drop out single Mom and her kid renting the duplex down the street were replaced by a couple doing post doc work at UCD and their kid after the landlord raised the rent…
SoDa, keeping it real every day.
DP
I think that a good first start would be to define our “housing needs” as opposed to our “housing wants”. I make a definite distinction when assessing projects. I believe that we have need for housing students, working individuals and their families especially those of modest incomes, and the homeless. I do not believe that we have a “need” to house those who high income or wealthy. We do not need to be ignoring codes and design guidelines in order to “help” those who need no help and developers and investors who also have plenty.
Just wondering – what about wealthy students (including non-resident students)?
Regarding housing for those of modest incomes and the homeless, are you primarily referring to subsidized housing? (I believe that another rather large affordable housing development has recently been approved, near 5th & Pena.)
funny, I thought I addressed it…on either this or the many dozens of other Trackside and other developer driven threads…..
If one looks around Davis, there are many many new developments which are very dense already…where the buyers do not care about having a yard and do not care about having sunlight on their garden…
Those are the areas where more densification may not get the resistance than in the areas whereas in the older areas adjacent to the downtown, those who bought with trees and light may truly and rightfully object.
Some decades ago I used to attend planning commission meetings and even knew many of the planners.
There are lots of things that can be done, yet the developers focus on what is best for them and to maximize their profits, rather than to pay the price for land zoned for apartments….
Marina said . . . “There are lots of things that can be done, yet the developers focus on what is best for them and to maximize their profits, rather than to pay the price for land zoned for apartments …”
Marina, I understand and respect the point you are making in your comment above; however, I do have a practical question regarding your final sentence. Specifically, where is there available land within the Davis City Limits that is zoned for apartments? I ask that question because, to the best of my knowledge none of the land so zoned is currently vacant. To the best of my knowledge all of it has already been built on.
Thank you for your consideration of this question.
Matt
Matt wrote:
> Specifically, where is there available land within the
> Davis City Limits that is zoned for apartments?
Someone told me years ago that the vacant lot at the corner of Kennedy Place and J Street (across from the Cranbrook Apartments) is zoned for an apartment I’ve always wondered why it is just sitting empty.
Matt, the lot on 7th between F and G that got sued over the parking space is zoned for multifamily even though it has an old house on it now.
Misanthrop wrote:
> The lot on 7th between F and G that got sued over
> the parking space is zoned for multifamily
Any idea if the lot on the corner (where the guy who sued his neighbor lives) or the (vacant) lot one up from the corner or the (vacant former gas station) lot across the street (next to the mall) are also zoned multifamily?
The corner lot probably is zoned multi-family but I’m not sure. I only know about the one lot because when it was for sale I noticed the zoning. My guess is that the north side of Seventh is zoned Multi-family. The lot next to the Mall will be developed after its pollution problems are remediated. It was a gas station long ago so my guess is that its a commercially zoned lot.
and, if the chamber really wanted to encourage more shopping in downtown, they could sponsor a tram to ride the streets of downtown davis 24/7…
UCD had a bunch of them in the old days and I haven’t even seen UCD using them at all anymore
the trams should also head to the parking structures on campus and the park and ride lot on the east end….and we should have more of those on the west and north and south ends.
We should make Richards tunnel a pedestrian and bicycle only zone 🙂 NEVER expand it…..
And block off first and perhaps even third to any cars or trucks only public transportation, pedestrian and bicyclists….restrict delivery trucks to certain hours of the day ….or very early in the mornings…
Send the cars down mace and the UCD on/off entrances.
Build a real interchange close to where the 80 bike overcross…..between the pole line and the mace crossings.
That was the preferred option of many of us on the south side back when the crossing was put at 5th.
These are only a few ideas that would really open up the channels to shopping in downtown….and also make it easier traffic flow wise.
Yes, that interchange will be pricey but it is needed…..
But, this is what will solve many problems.
I used to walk and ride my bike….then I got sick and had to take unitrans…then as a manager I hardly ever left the office and so I started driving to work on the campus from South Davis…..my business manager lives in North North Davis aka Springlake and it is way faster for her to get to work than for me now. At least when our target arrival time is 8 am.
The downtown would thrive with open malls instead of parking spaces….and parking structures could be built on the periphery of main roads heading into the town.
Matt, I have not looked at a map of available commercial properties in decades actually….and also have not seen any changes to the general plan also in a few decades.
But, knowing the basic premise of building apartments and such in locations which are not as desirable for single-family homes, one can just drive along 80 and or covell or cowell and on the West side along 113….and see many spots still left open….and some may be for such uses.
Some may be designated for light industrial or fast food or who knows what all…..but there is a lot of land than could be zoned in such manners due to their inherent undesirability for single family housing…
Also, have you seen the houses along 80 just before Mace. Those houses could be razed and used for more appropriate uses….for example widening the freeway or light industrial.
Those are too close for any human or other animal to be exposed to those toxic fumes 24/7….
I was against New Harmony due to the many studies of proximity to freeways and health issues – especially for children and elderly.
The fact that I live not far from there had nothing to do with it.
Some of us actually care about the health and welfare of people…..and besides that it wasn’t needed.
At least not all of those units at once.
If somehow developers were encouraged to phase in projects over time to meet needs and not cause the issues of oversupply, then many issues would also be handled more easily.
Marina wrote:
> We should make Richards tunnel a pedestrian and
> bicycle only zone 🙂 NEVER expand it…
Downtown would get a lot less shoppers from South Davis. I ride in to downtown most days, but even in Davis (especially South Davis) not a lot a people over 30 ride their bikes in to downtown.
> The downtown would thrive with open malls instead of
> parking spaces….and parking structures could be built on
> the periphery of main roads heading into the town.
Can you name a Downtown CBD in the US without a steady flow of tourists that “thrives” with open malls instead of parking.
P.S. The K Street Mall just across the causeway was a total failure and the link below says: “85 percent of the pedestrian malls once in existence in America’s downtowns eventually were partially or fully reopened to traffic”
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/07/25/16th-street-among-a-rare-breed-most.html
on the south edge of New Harmony is a lovely low income development…with lovely gardens, sky lights etc. And until very recently I had no idea it was anything other than a typical lower density and lovely condo or apartment complex. Not sure what the name of that development is, but I had never been inside until my hairdresser moved to that location…after he was too sick to work and had almost died several times over his last few years of life.
That type of development would be appropriate for the Trackside locale….are the developers going to do something like that?
That is only up to the city, as the developers would make way more for the giant monstrocity they propose…so why would they settle for less?
in the meantime, why should neighbors and citizens settle for less either?
get a clue whoever was sharing that useless and outdated article.
the only reason K flopped was because of the Arden mall and Florin mall and so on…
now see what was done to Florin….it is now an outdoor mall due to that is now what folks desire.
Ask many towns like SLO, and Long Beach what happened when they started their trams and went back to outdoor malls…
PS> were you here when the Woodland mall shut down woodland downtown? have you seen that mall now?? nothing but discount walmart type garbage and the downtown is thriving…
Much nicer and more adult suitable restaurants are back in the downtown Woodland area…the antique shops are back…and so is more upscale shopping such as ktichen ware – while Davis is only getting more fast food and asian restaurants….
PS> Since Monticello and Tucos closed, we now head to Dixon to the Firehouse Bistro or to woodland for many many way better options….often it is easier to get there than to downtown Davis from where we live in Soda…
one can stroll around the streets without being mowed over by skate boarders….and also one can cross streets without being mowed over by bicyclists…
Wow, Marina and Frank Lee saddened by the closure of the same restaurant! I knew they were cut from the same cloth, two of kind.
AM, you still have no idea who I really am….and yet you get more glimpses every day…
Nor do I care.
PS> Davis has a very steady flow of tourists…..what do you do that you don’t even notice them…
Our department alone brings in hundreds every year… and ours is a small department relatively speaking.
And, what do you call the people who come from all over to events at Mondavi, pavilion, athletic games, students checking out UCD….and so many other tourists.
People who stop in Davis to eat and shop on the way to the Bay area after skiing…
Ask Redrum what % of their business is skiers and those who love to camp and so much else.
We still need that interchange, but it should be for the houses, apartments and businesses on Olive Dr and to get over to the “other side”….
Stick those barriers in the roadway so that only emergency vehicles or local traffic can get through….and pedestrians and bicyclists… and even Unitrans….will speed up the public transit also
Map of Core Area
OMG>… now some of the truth appears by those who hide behind their sock puppets….well one can admit to not being very pc right?
but you do know that 25% of ALL housing built now for some decades demands that it be “affordable”..
and since those who grew up in this town, unless mommy and/or daddy helped out, would never ever be able to afford an “affordable” home….
[moderator: edited, off topic]
Don, would you please share the codes for that area….and btw….I thought Trackside is next to the tracks…is it not?
where is THAT on this map?
what happened to the old zoning guides like R-1, R-2, etc…what are these newfangled codes?
definitions, please….
Trackside is the southernmost parcel in easternmost zone marked M-U.
. . . to the right and down for maply challenged.
why is really old Davis not on this map? north of 5th…?
and how about the hunt area or whatever it is now called…. just east of the tracks?
all important to such discussions, I believe
As the title on the image indicates, this is a map of what the City considers the ‘core area,’ otherwise known as Downtown. It is taken from the Core Area Specific Plan, that is available on the City website. It doesn’t show the other parts of town because they are not part of the core. This is generally considered a commercial district, so the codes you see are commercial codes, not the residential codes you were expecting (R-1, R-2).
As can be seen on the map, the core extends to the alleyway located on the east side of the Trackside parcel and running behind the homes on the west side of I street (not shown).
The core area and downtown are not exactly the same. The core area also includes Transition Zones.
Old East Davis (east of H/railroad) far, far pre-dates Old North Davis, north of 5th.
“The problem is clear. The answer is less so. Some have argued that you should not build up, you need to build out. Others have argued that not being able to build out means we must build up. Finally, there are those who have seemed to argue that we should do neither and let the university deal with growth impacts.”
You left out the best answer that we should do some of all four options, go up to appropriate heights depending on the impacts of each project, go out to reduce impacts on existing neighborhoods, have UCD do its part to house its students and in some places, like the Families First site, keep the zoning as it is and force the owners to address the fact that the answer to the stranded asset problem isn’t a windfall monster redevelopment but a smaller repurposing of the perfectly good facility that exists there today.
Of course getting rid of Measure R is the key to rational planning. Until Davis has a way to reduce the growth and economic pressures creating the bonanza market for infill we will continue to see a parcel by parcel fight over every project.
The answer isn’t clear because what you’ve proposed isn’t viable – the voters aren’t going to rescind Measure J
Then we will be stuck in this terrible community argument well beyond 2020 when Measure R expires. My hope is that when R comes up for renewal it will be modified so that it’s workable or voted down. Otherwise it will be another ten years of craziness.
I don’t see any evidence that’s going to happen.
Maybe not, but the alternative is endless acrimony in the community. I think the question is what is the most sensible path forward? My hope is that by 2020 we will have the foresight to extricate ourselves from the exhaustion we have created for ourselves.
Try and tweak it if you like, but overturning Measure R doesn’t have a prayer in Davis. And I fail to see how anything would reduce ‘endless acrimony’. Prior to Measure J, those who opposed projects had to go the referendum route. That’s even more time-consuming and acrimonious. Now it automatically goes on the ballot.
I have said before that I think the city will have to take the lead on any annexation.
I like and respect your writing. But, the “exhaustion” is a result of endless conflict with those who keep pushing for (largely unwanted) changes, in my view. (Specifically, those who cannot seem to accept that Davis is a slow-growth community.)
Ron said . . . “But, the “exhaustion” is a result of endless conflict with those who keep pushing for (largely unwanted) changes, in my view. (Specifically, those who cannot seem to accept that Davis is a slow-growth community.)”
Ron’s statement is incomplete as written. To be correct it needs to read as follows:
But, the “exhaustion” is a result of endless conflict with those who keep pushing for (largely unwanted) changes, in my view. (Specifically, those who cannot seem to accept that Davis is a slow-growth community that can not pay its bills.)
or alternatively,
But, the “exhaustion” is a result of endless conflict with those who keep pushing for (largely unwanted) changes, in my view. (Specifically, those who cannot seem to accept that Davis is a slow-growth community that does not pay its bills.)
The exhaustion is over a fruitless fight against the reality that Davis has turned out to be a small-sized city with the 60th largest campus in the US and not some little liberal rural hamlet.
Misanthrop: you will soon see on the ballot an updated Measure R which I think you might like. It sets up a much better, transparent, and deliberate process for the city to follow when it processes these applications. The next project coming appears to be a housing project on the NW Quadrant by David Taormino, and perhaps a suicide mission by Tim Ruff on his Nishi parcel. November ballot.
Agree 100% Throp, if only there was a chance in hell Measure JR would every be rescinded. How in F can that even be a legal thing? Yeah, this whole mess is due to that, but those who don’t believe in the laws of economics will never be able to see that.
because, mr AM, this is real democracy at work….I mean with measure J/R….for those with their own agendas, it may not fit in….too bad, oh well….jeez
The only hope for Davis is State intervention. There is a growing understanding that the most cruel impacts to the non-elite (working class) is the elites forcing a scarcity of housing because they got theirs and the others can just go pound sand. And there is growing momentum for state legislation to require development that is reasonable to be approved… and this will get to zoning too… that zoning needs to be reasonable to accomodate the housing needs of the community.
I would never expected to favor central control over local governance, but what we have in Davis is selfish tyranny… favoring lack of development to prevent the most silly, stupid, whiney, intangible and immaterial “impacts” to the existing residents to the great harm of many who are decimated by escalating rents due to the lack of housing supply.
This has got to stop. A reasonably-priced place to live is a fundemental human right. Preventing hypersentive emotional reactions over simple aescethic change of the lot next door is not. We should just hire therapists to help with that.
Everywhere? That would be in interesting policy to try to implement in California.
Everywhere with options to build.
there is no dearth of land….but it is location,location, location….always the
real estate mantra…
and overbuilding unneeded units only exacerbates the issues in town..
and as I keep telling so many developer and real estate and investor pals, just buy appropriate land and follow the rules and J/R won’t be an issue….
PS> I was soooo thrilled that the 160 acres bordering the west perimeter of Davis is now an orchard….just hope it is an organic orchard… as the roundup will be a killer for anyone in the vicinity…..
I so wanted to save it…but it was out of my price range at the time….
still is… and will be more so once the orchard is established.
one can still buy a foreclosure within 20 miles of UCD for less than $30K….and in detroit one can buy up dozens of foreclosures for less than that..
If you are smart, and drive to campus before or after traffic….rare these days but still possible….it is faster than driving from my Soda abode….
The McKewon (sp) condos which were built throughout each town within driving distance some many decades ago….and also were built in may neighborhoods in the LA and Orange County area, were meant as low income housing.
In Davis, they have gone for as high as $350K….and in the Franklin area of Oak Park, one still cannot give them away….
And, I am walking away from my house in Soda….to an investor…as I couldn’t take the time to fix up and sell….and I didn’t want to make it a 5 bd rental…..my neighbors asked me to PLEASE not do that.
And, many of the old neighbors who lived on this street when I moved here….because it backed up to the Ricci farm…have now died….since my uncle passed at Thanksgiving in 2015…. It is now Woodbridge….and not far is Willow Creek.
Five other neighbors who lived here before me when I bought in 89, are dead since then…..others are barely holding on…
Once again, someone may think this is offtopic….is it? does anyone care what happens to people who live next to where the crop dusters spray? and now ON the land where it was sprayed recently relatively speaking…
Davis became a model for affordable housing before it was fashionable….please show me which young couples can buy a house in Davis….since the decades that 25% affordable became law in town?
MH, do you know if Will Arnold will recuse himself from the Taormino project?
DT is the long-time and sometimes but not always a not so silent partner of Doug Arnold and many large upscale projects in this town and surrounding farmland, which is now N.D. Meadows or some such… and good pal, also of my Ex….
Those families are very close and intermarried in fact….I think
Marina:
I don’t know what involvement WA and DT still have. The real estate company is going through a lot of changes this year, and I am not sure who is still connected in that office. I feel very confident that WA will be very careful to comply with the Brown Act; he is a kind, honest and loving person who pays attention to these things.
I do know that when I started looking into the potential conflicts of interest that Lucas might have had from his ownership of the Trackside, he suddenly (allegedly) sold his share.
Back in the old days, we had lots of attorneys on the council….and many often recused themselves from various topics.
Will is a great guy, and I liked many others in his family also.
As one can imagine, even if one is no longer “officially” affiliated or whatever, the loyalties tend to run deep, and thus perceptions may be inadvertently colored as a result.
There is a reason that at the UC, there are policies about “near relatives”….and those policies have been expanded yearly to now include just about anyone who has any kind of a job on campus, and who happens to share a roof with anyone else who may have any kind of a job anywhere else on campus, whether paid or volunteer or intern…This includes roommates, boarders, as well as friends, lovers, relatives and/or family by blood or marriage and so on….
Perhaps it is time to expand the City policies also?