By Rhonda Reed, Cathy Forkas, Alan C. Miller, Mark Grote and Steve Kaltenbach
Trackside Partners LLC has proposed a redesigned building at the site it purchased in Old East Davis. Though smaller than the previous design, the proposal far exceeds the mass and scale envisioned in the Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential Neighborhoods Design Guidelines.
The Old East Davis Neighborhood Association supports development on the Trackside site, as specified by the Design Guidelines. 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. 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.
Trackside is not downtown. The proposed development is directly across an alley from single-story homes and infill units. The site falls within a transition zone, for which the mass and type of development are clearly described in the Design Guidelines.
In the early 2000s, the property owner at Davis Ace Hardware sought Old East neighborhood input on a two- to three-3 story proposal for a combined commercial and residential project then under consideration in the transition zone east. The zoning at the time, however, did not allow for combined commercial and residential use.
In 2006, the city proposed to change the zoning at the site, extending from Third to Fifth streets, to “mixed-use.” This change would allow for a mixed commercial and residential project. The Old East Davis Neighborhood Association supported the Ace proposal, and also agreed to the city’s proposed zoning changes, which brought the Core Area Specific Plan over the railroad tracks to the alley, to blend with the transition zone of Old East Davis.
The association’s backing of the zoning change and expanded Core Area Specific Plan was in support of a mixed-use project that would honor the Design Guidelines. The association’s support was never intended to be a starting point for further erosion of land-use law, such as a special allowance for a non-complying, multi-story building immediately adjacent to traditional one-story homes in Old East Davis.
City ordinance states that wherever the guidelines for the Downtown Davis and Traditional Residential Neighborhoods conflict with the existing zoning standards, including planned development, the more restrictive standard shall prevail. 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.
Recently, the city invited consultants to discuss the relatively new concept of form-based code, under which the overall form of a city is designed from the future back to the present, with its ultimate form planned in advance.
Regulations are simplified and rationalized when form-based planning is used. Neighbors know what is allowed on adjacent properties, and developers know what they can build. Special exemptions under the guise of “planned development” are highly unusual in cities that use form-based planning.
At the workshop, the form-based planning consultants emphasized above all: “transition, transition, transition.” They cited poorly planned transitions as the biggest mistakes that cities make. Clearly, the transition zones envisioned in the Design Guidelines are an early move in the direction of form-based planning. In the case of Old East Davis, this takes the form of a half-block transition from the downtown core to the traditional neighborhood.
The newly proposed, four-story Trackside Center fails to make an appropriate transition in any direction. To the west will be a new two-story commercial building: the new Ace Hardware addition that the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association supported. To the north is a ground-level rock yard. To the east is a row of traditional one-story homes and infill units. To the south is a row of one-story commercial buildings.
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.
The neighborhood association did not oppose the Chen Building, because the Design Guidelines allow for multi-story buildings in the downtown core. The “Double Chen” mass of the Trackside proposal would, however, sit directly across a narrow alley from a block of single-story homes and infill units. This is not rational city planning.
The association values the heritage neighborhoods of Davis and is standing firm to preserve — for future generations — Davis’ historic character. Furthermore, the association stands firm against planning-by-exception precedents that could lead to an unsightly wall of buildings immediately adjacent to traditional one-story homes.
The Old East Davis Neighborhood Association wishes to see rational, mixed-use development at the Trackside site, in full compliance with the Design Guidelines. We ask community members for your support as we engage in the city planning process, advocating for our neighborhood, speaking out against zoning by exception and working to establish positive precedents for growth in Davis.
— Rhonda Reed, Cathy Forkas, Alan C. Miller, Mark Grote and Steve Kaltenbach are members of the Old East Davis Neighborhood board of directors.
I could not agree more that the city needs to enforce the established design guidelines. I could see the usual developer suspects trying to push the city to ignore the guidelines in their quest for maximum return on investment, but I’m a little surprised that the Trackside Partners who are first and foremost fellow citizens of Davis would not respect the idea and intent of a well planned transition zone that preserves the character of adjacent neighborhoods.
I think this comes down to the city having needs and if we can’t build out, we have to build up
OEDNA agrees: In the downtown, Davis should build upward, as we are slowly doing — though ironically the nearest building construction only went from two to three stories at 3rd and G Streets, and the soon-to-come ACE building (which OEDNA supported) from one to two stories, right across from Trackside.
As well, in Transition Zone East (which includes the Trackside site), the Design Guidelines allow for two stories, plus a third story setback — up from one story currently at the site. OEDNA supports development on the Trackside site, as thus prescribed.
I understand your argument Alan, and if the City was in sound fiscal position, I think your approach would be appropriate. The fact remains though that the design guidelines and zoning plans were created in an era prior to the City recognizing/admitting that it had $10s – $100s of millions in unfunded obligations. As such, I think all of the zoning/planning/design guidelines in town need to be objectively reassessed to determine if they are in the best interests of the City (as a whole) moving forward.
In the case of Trackside, the people least able to make that objective reassessment are the neighbors, and specifically, OEDNA. Your wants are important and should be given due consideration, but the final decision should be made based on our need to restore the fiscal health of the City.
Can you please “remind” everyone again how adding more residential development makes a (positive??) long-term contribution toward city finances? (Are you actually stating this with a straight face?)
I don’t think that the neighbors are opposed to the small commercial development that’s included at Trackside.
Isn’t Trackside mixed use with retail and restaurants on the bottom? It is also very dense, so the added city service costs would be small compared with additional property tax revenue.
You need a sarcasm font, Ron, but in the meantime, you might consider a little education.
The Smart Math of Mixed-Use Development
Mark, 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.
Alan C Miller
please email me : rosecreekdavis@gmail.com
The real problem isn’t Trackside, it’s that Old East Davis was built at a time when we didn’t prioritize efficient land uses by growing up. What we need to do is start densifying existing neighborhoods.
Chamber Fan wrote:
> What we need to do is start densifying existing neighborhoods.
The problem is that most people that live in current single family neighborhoods don’t want “densification”.
I’m in favor of building six story apartments or condos over parking and retail downtown but I don’t want a six story “Creekside Apartments” in my neighborhood and I’m guessing that the local developer who lives in North Davis Farms wouldn’t want a six story “Lakeview Apartments” looking down on his home (and lakes)…
P.S. Davis thanks for the one line bio on Rhonda Reed…
jeez you guys who live in SODA and elsewhere….wtf do those who live downtown want THEIR light blocked….
and it is NOT needed in downtown.
the garages can be dug…
and yeah, that is expensive….so what …the same developers who have made millions in this town over the decades are likely getting close to billions now.
they can afford it …
check out this place in Baja…..it has a single story height limit….garages are dug in the sand…
Rancho Costa Verde….it has a few issues but tall buildings are not in the mix
Marina wrote:
> wtf do those who live downtown want THEIR light blocked….
I am talking about building up on the many blocks in the center of downtown where no one is currently living (that unlike Trackside will not block the light to any current homes).
> check out this place in Baja…..it has a single story height
> limit….garages are dug in the sand… Rancho Costa Verde
Pedregal in Baja (Cabo) has some tall condos (with above ground covered parking) and is also nice… Many people like to live in tall buildings and many don’t…
This not only makes sense, this is the vision set forth in the Design Guidelines.
The Old East Davis Neighborhood Association worked with other stakeholders a plan to allow infill both within the neighborhood (with over a dozen examples to date) and at Trackside site which lies within Transition Zone East. The OEDNA is fine with a compliant building being developed at the site, as per the plan.
It may indeed be true that most exclusively-single-family neighborhoods don’t want densification. Old East is not strictly single-family by any stretch, and Old East has already taken in quite a share of apartments and is quite dense by Davis standards. And Old East is willing to take more, including a compliant Trackside project.
OEDNA partially agrees. OED is densifying, guided by the Design Guidelines. OEDNA has incorporated well over a dozen infill projects in our neighborhood since the Design Guidelines were implemented. Whenever an Old East resident has made significant changes or additions to their property, they must follow both the Design Guidelines and parking regulations in applications to the City.
Trackside is a huge development relative to City planning, and relative to all the land uses surrounding it. Yet Trackside Partners LLC is seeking exemptions from both the Guidelines and parking restrictions that all others in the Neighborhood must follow.
As for Old East Davis being “built at a time when we didn’t prioritize efficient land uses by growing up”, Old East was laid out in the late 1800’s. However, the empty lots and almond orchards have been developed and densified over the last several decades with two and three-story apartment buildings, granny flats, and other forms of infill. Old East Davis is in fact densely populated in terms of population/land-area relative to most of the suburbs in Davis.
As for “what we need to do is start densifying existing neighborhoods”, as previously stated Old East is one of the densest neighborhoods in Davis, excluding pure apartment districts. Old East Davis, the Downtown and the other historic neighborhoods have a plan for densifying. The plan has worked well, and everyone in our neighborhood has had to adhere to that plan. All we are asking is that Trackside Partners LLC, adhere to the same plan, as the Old East residents have done.
It certainly is a citywide issue.
The article is well-written and reasonable. It sure would be a lot easier and less stressful for neighbors, if developers simply followed existing guidelines/zoning. I guess that’s too much to ask?
I hope that the city does not respond by making wholesale changes to the general plan and zoning in areas throughout the city that are under threat/vulnerable.
Davis is already one of the most dense small cities in the country. How dense do you think it should be?
Ron, the 2008 Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) made a very clear decision that the city should commit to densification as the preferred method for accommodating future housing needs in Davis. The HESC did not set specific goals. If that collaborative effort did not provide an answer to “How dense do you think it should be?” why do you think an individual will be able to provide an answer to that question?
Any individual person’s answer to the question depends on what their frame of reference is. If they just moved to Davis from San Francisco where the density is more than double Davis’ at 17,200 people per square mile, they will feel Davis is very undense. If they just moved to Davis from Winters, their perspective will be very different.
The other key perspective determinant is whether an individual thinks of Davis from the perspective of the City Limits or from the perspective of the DJUSD boundaries.
You often cite numbers and statistics, especially regarding development. However, based on your response, it seems that you don’t seem to want to consider numbers regarding density. Is that not a key metric, impacting standard of living, existing neighborhoods, infrastructure, ease of movement, etc.?
When anyone (or any committee) advocates for more density, is it not logical/reasonable to ask how dense (e.g., per square mile), especially when considering substantial changes to the general plan and zoning?
Why is density a key metric? Did you watch the presentations last year where the key metric was revenue per acre – in other words, more efficient use of land through density? How do you argue both against density and peripheral development? Do you want to destroy the city of Davis?
Chamber Fan:
Seems like you didn’t read my comments, prior to responding.
And again, residential development is usually a drain on city finances, over time. It is not the “answer” to the financial challenges faced by the city. I believe that there’s an effort by (some) pro-development types to “confuse” the issue.
Why is residential a drain on city resources? Causal factors please.
Chamber Fan:
This issue has already been analyzed, in-depth. Even Matt acknowledges that below a certain threshold (e.g., estimated around $600K per dwelling), the cost of additional city services required eventually exceeds the tax revenues collected. (And yet, Matt is usually not supportive of my statements, to say the least.)
I recall that Matt’s committee did not examine the impact of apartment complexes. However, we already know that apartment complexes only contribute the same amount as a single-family dwelling, regarding the school parcel tax. (Regardless of the number of units in the complex.)
If you’re disputing any of this, perhaps you can explain why the existing city (of 67,000 residents) apparently cannot support the level of services already required. And, why you think that thousands more will “solve” the problem. Perhaps you can also address why this is an issue throughout California.
Ron – I think you are beating a dead horse here. There is retail below that will generate tax revenue. The tax revenue per acre for the residential will be net positive to the city. There is very little to no tax revenue coming from that property now.
You should give up on this tactic to oppose and move on to finding some obscure scientist to write a report about some environmental factor that you can use.
Yes – you’re right. This has (once again) drifted somewhat off topic.
But, I don’t think the neighbors are objecting to the commercial component.
Well then don’t chase this “won’t bring in enough tax revenue” track because it is untrue as the project is proposed.
Ron – Part of the problem here is that the issue has not been analyzed as well as you think. There are costs of city services, but in a small, dense development, I question that assumption. I’ve also seen cost to provide those services is in part determined by cost of city employees. Hence, my question to you, which I haven’t seen evidence that you are doing anything other than parroting other people.
Frankly: Perhaps it should be noted that a commercial component already exists. Not sure how much more commercial activity (if any), would be generated after the site is redeveloped.
Ron said . . . “especially about development”
Ron, that is a very interesting comment. You said it for a reason. Could you elaborate on that reason?
In doing some self examination, I would say the expression “especially about financial/fiscal metrics” definitely applies to me. I would also say the expression “especially about accountability metrics” applies as well.
Ron asked . . . “When anyone (or any committee) advocates for more density, is it not logical/reasonable to ask how dense (e.g., per square mile)”
Ron, to start a conversation about density it seems appropriate to first establish a mutual understanding of how you want density to be calculated. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like your calculation of density is the number of residential units per geographical measure (e.g., per square mile). Is that correct? If it is not correct, please let me know what calculation you want to use.
Once we have established your standard, we can drill down into your question a modicum of focus.
Perhaps two reasons. For one, I generally pay attention to development issues, so I probably read/notice your comments more regarding that issue.
The other reason is because it seems that you often cite numbers and statistics which seem to support more development, but are somewhat dismissive of numbers and statistics that might not support it (as noted in the “density” comments, above).
Regarding density “specifics”, there’s probably several measurements that can be used (including density per square mile, or density in a particular geographic area). The larger question is whether or not density should be considered. (Right now, it seems that it isn’t.) And yet, there’s an effort to increase density, without even considering the impacts on neighborhoods, infrastructure, services required, ease of movement, etc.
Ron said . . . “The other reason is because it seems that you often cite numbers and statistics which seem to support more development, but are somewhat dismissive of numbers and statistics that might not support it.”
Ron, you lost me on the “dismissive of numbers/statistics that might not support” Can you point me to any example numbers that you have provided in the past that I have dismissed?
If I have dismissed any numbers/statistics of yours please accept my sincere apology. I try never to do that . . . only to augment numbers/statistics with additional information that provides a fuller perspective on the issue at hand.
Ron said . . . “Regarding density “specifics”, there’s probably several measurements that can be used (including density per square mile, or density in a particular geographic area). The larger question is whether or not density should be considered.”
Regarding your larger question in your second sentence, my personal belief is that density absolutely should be considered.
Regarding your first sentence, you have defined the term “density” with the term “density.” The “per square mile” part or the “in a particular geographic area” part are easy to understand. What isn’t clear is what the metric/statistic is “per square mile” or “in a particular geographic area.” Said another way, if a statistician is going to be counting something, what will that statistician be counting?
Above, you stated the following:
In your follow-up comment, you stated:
These two statements seem somewhat conflicting, but I’m relieved to know that you believe that density should be considered.
Regarding exactly how to measure density, this is something that could be explored further. (It probably should have been considered by the Housing Element Steering Committee, prior to making a general recommendation to increase density.) An overall measurement per total square mile is certainly one way to measure density. However, individual neighborhoods will differ. (The unit of measurement does not necessarily have to equate to a square mile.)
My main point is that density should be considered in some manner, when proposing changes to the general plan and zoning. And yet, there doesn’t seem to be any policy whatsoever to consider it. This is something that will impact the entire city, with particular impacts on some “at risk” neighborhoods.
Correct me if I am wrong but you opposed Nishi and generally oppose peripheral development.
So you are making an argument that increased density has impacts. It does.
And you are also against peripheral development (thus relieving density) because it has impacts. It does.
So then, why doesn’t the label NOE fit you like a glove?
Not sure what that means, but it’s true that I don’t support endless development (regardless of whether it’s outward, or upward expansion). At some point, is it ever enough? Or, should we simply let the potential market (and those forever pushing for more development) make the decisions?
I thought that made me a Banana? (Something like that.)
I believe that development can (and will) occur within the city, even under existing plans and zoning. Seems like others are pushing for more than that, and then attacking those who don’t automatically just “go along” with the proposed changes. (That’s when the name-calling starts, along with comments about “destroying the city”, etc.)
It seems that the University is in the best position overall to house the majority of their planned increase in enrollment (and to coordinate those two efforts).
Ron said . . . “An overall measurement per total square mile is certainly one way to measure density.”
An overall measurement of what Ron? What should be counted in each total square mile? NOTE: see below for a discussion of whether “square mile” is the right surface area designation.
Ron said . . . “However, individual neighborhoods will differ. (The unit of measurement does not necessarily have to equate to a square mile.)”
I agree 100%. Per square mile is much too large an area.
Ron, the fact that you (as an individual) are having so much trouble coming up with an answer to what should be counted in order to calculate the density over a selected surface area is living proof of exactly what I was saying when I said to you, “The HESC did not set specific goals. If that collaborative effort did not provide an answer to “How dense do you think it should be?” Why do you think an individual will be able to provide an answer to that question?” And consider the fact that based on your comments, you believe an agreed upon measurement of density is very important. If you, with your strong identification with density are having trouble coming up with a measurement metric, imagine how much trouble other less interested Davisites will have.
So with all that said, that leaves you with the still unanswered question of what should be counted in whatever specific surface area designation is chosen.
Matt:
I’m not sure why this is so difficult for you to calculate. I’d suggest starting off with the number of individual dwelling units per a given geographical area. I realize that this won’t necessarily provide the exact number of people living in a specific area, but it should provide some idea.
Existing zoning also provides information regarding the number of dwelling units per acre, in a given residential area.
The total population of Davis (approximately 67,000 residents) within the geographic size of Davis (10 miles X 10 miles, give or take) would provide an overall picture, as well.
Matt:
Before you ask me additional questions – if you don’t like my response, I’d also suggest that you put forth some ideas regarding the most appropriate way to measure density (since you already agreed that this should be a consideration when considering changes to existing plans and zoning). Since you’re a “numbers guy”, and are running for the council, your suggestions might be even better than mine.
Also, since you agree that density is a consideration, you might want to share your thoughts regarding the effort to change plans and zoning to increase density (in the apparent absence of any city policy regarding the issue).
67,000 x 10 square miles is 6,700 per square mile. But then you need to consider the 8,000 or so kids living on campus not counted on the census but using Davis’s little downtown commercial area. So lets make that 7,500 people per square mile.
And then we can think about the size of our downtown that is designated our primary shopping mecca by the Davis protectors of all things right and relevant. Maybe 15 square blocks if I am being generous.
Lets compare that to say Palo Alto. A college town about the population of Davis.
Palo Alto’s population density is 2,500 per square mile. And it has maybe 50-75 blocks of core shopping/retail.
How about Santa Cruz? 3,800 people per square mile. Lots of retail locations throughout the city.
As I have written before it is all the puckered up old NOE people preventing peripheral development that is causing the infill projects that then get their NIMBY blood boiling. Davis has a congestion problem because of the puckered up old NOE people’s resistance to peripheral growth. If Davis expanded 1000 acres it would be 11.5 square miles and still be far more population dense that any other comparable city.
Maybe Davis staying dense is appropriate given the foolishness of its residents over development.
Ron said . . . “I’m not sure why this is so difficult for you to calculate.”
Once I have your recommended/desired metrics, it is incredibly easy to calculate. I’ve simply been waiting for you to commit to a recommended/desired metric. With your statement below, you have finally done so.
Ron said . . . “I’d suggest starting off with the number of individual dwelling units per a given geographical area. “
Okay!!! Individual dwelling units in a given geographical area. Thank you.
Ron said . . . “Existing zoning also provides information regarding the number of dwelling units per acre, in a given residential area.”
I wish it was that easy. Here is a LINK to the existing zoning code for Mixed Use (M-U) District(s) in Davis. Let me know if you find any density information therein.
Ron said . . . “Before you ask me additional questions – if you don’t like my response, I’d also suggest that you put forth some ideas regarding the most appropriate way to measure density (since you already agreed that this should be a consideration when considering changes to existing plans and zoning).”
Ron, where have I ever said I don’t like your answer? In fact, I like your series of responses very much. They very graphically illuminate the original point I made.
One possible suggested metric is VMTs per selected geographic area, or alternatively GHGs per selected geographic area.
Ron said . . . “Since you’re a “numbers guy”, and are running for the council, your suggestions might be even better than mine.”
Yes I am a “numbers guy.” I’m not inclined to believe my suggestions are better than anyone else’s. My ears are much more valuable than my mouth. Running for Council? Do you have a source for that assertion?
Ron said . . . “Also, since you agree that density is a consideration, you might want to share your thoughts regarding the effort to change plans and zoning to increase density (in the apparent absence of any city policy regarding the issue).”
In the response immediately above this one, you will see one example of the many zoning districts that do not have a density provision in their zoning code language.
Perhaps you’ve uncovered another problem that might need to be addressed by the city. (Hopefully, prior to proceeding with additional changes to plans/zoning.)
Ron, until and unless Chapter 40 of the Municipal Code is changed, it is the law in our hamlet. Article 40.15.060 Height regulations and Article 40.15.080 Lot coverage; floor area ratio requirements were the clean, crisp, clear provisions of that law in our hamlet that made my “no” vote regarding the initial Trackside proposal easy. The proposed 3.76 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was more than double the allowed 2.0 FAR in the Code.
You can’t just unilaterally decide to suspend the provisions of the law.
You are absolutely right, Matt. This is California, the land of urban sprawl. We can’t allow those pesky developers to use land efficiently. If we did that, we might have to admit that they are decent folks after all. Good thing our zoning regulations are etched in stone.
Mark, zoning regulations are not etched in stone. They are living, breathing documents. As you and Frankly have noted there is a process for requesting a zoning variance. The Trackside development team made a decision that their initial proposal was a bridge too far, and came back with a revised proposal that is 1.69 FAR in a zone that allows 1.70 FAR (without a 0.30 underground parking bonus that would have taken them to 2.00 FAR. They believe their new proposal uses land efficiently. Have you heard otherwise?
The Undense . . . is that similar to The Undead?
Shall we build zombie housing in Davis?
Ron, 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.
some truth here…those who bought on the tiny lots and the tiny houses since the city planners and commission and council stopped caring about trees and quality of life….those are the neighborhoods which should be densified…
not the folks who bought the trees, the light from the sun, and also the location at a premium
there is now much precedence in the area of land use law…. and any neighbor whose sunlight is taken away from them can and should sue….and they will win…
PS>>>>Did I mention that the “single story” built behind my house which abuts to the former Ricci farm is actually 3 stories high? at the time, no-one imagined that Fouts would do that..
I was unable to get solar on my house as a result and nothing grows in my yard ….
many many “rules ” and “regulations” later….we now have not only a “story” limit but a “height” limit.
and we got J and R and so much else….as I told some of the others who are back trying to push the unneeded hotel in that location and so much else….they should go pick daisies…that project will never be anything but small homes on small lots….and not tall either
PS> as a dabbler in many things, including land use law and engineering, I know some things….more than most in this town…on many a subject….and guess what….those of us who like the old downtown Davis will never give up
and guess what, some of us are retiring and now have more time and money on our hands…
and some of us care about the trees and quality of life and think that someone should not be bait and switched when they buy a property
if the developers don’t want to build what it is zoned for then just go away and stop making the life miserable for those who care
The Authors said . . . “City ordinance states that wherever the guidelines for the Downtown Davis and Traditional Residential Neighborhoods conflict with the existing zoning standards, including planned development, the more restrictive standard shall prevail. 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.”
It would be very helpful to have the citation for the above statement . . . either in the form of an Ordinance Number or a reference to section(s) of the Municipal Code where the described “conflict rules” are written.
I have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the Municipal Code looking for these “conflict rules” and to-date I have not been able to find them.
Anything coming to Matt’s request? Crickets so far.
Davis Municipal Code Section 40.13A.020 reads: “Wherever the guidelines for the DDTRN conflict with the existing zoning standards including planned development, the more restrictive standard shall prevail.”
Thank you Larry. I am glad to actually have that reference. I had found 40.01.070, but had not uncovered 40.13A.020.
40.01.070 Interpretation of chapter; effect of conflicting provisions.
In their interpretation and application, provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements. Where this chapter imposes a greater restriction than is imposed or required by other rules or regulations or ordinances, the provisions of this chapter shall control.
Larry, after reading the 40.13A.020 section you cited I’m left with a dilemma. Specifically, Page 10 of the DDTRN Design Guidelines reads as follows:
Specifically, does Section 40.13A.020 only pertain to those places in the Guidelines where standards are specified? It would be a whole lot more helpful if the language were more precise.
Thanks again Matt,
Very helpful. Though there seems to be some ambiguity in the language, I believe the case can be stated as: When the Design Guidelines (or any other City documents) use absolute language (e.g. ‘shall’), then the statement is a rule, if not the statement is meant to guide.
I believe that the ambiguities/conflicts occur because we tend only to ‘add’ to law and actually ‘re-write’ less often; probably because it takes more time and energy. We seldom go back and do a thorough house-cleaning and put everything into a cohesive and coherent whole.
Even so, “…it is designed primarily to provide guidance toward preserving and enhancing…” is not actually that vague, even with different esthetics. Statements by the Trackside Partners not withstanding, they have not even tried to fit into the neighborhood. It appears to me that they want the maximum return on investment and have not been particularly concerned about the neighbors or the neighborhood. If they were out-of-towners, this would be more understandable. Given that they are all Davisites, it is more than a little disconcerting.
Also, “In those cases where it is anticipated that future zoning changes will be made to implement guidelines, quantitative limits are provided,” seems pretty clear. I’m paraphrasing, but the phrases ‘two stories,’ or ‘three stories with limits to mitigate impacts to the surrounding environment,’ are pretty unequivocal and they are repeated over and over. Nowhere in the Design Guidelines – NOWHERE – does it talk about four stories for that site. It appears to me (and many others) that quantitative limits have been provided and that they have been ignored.
I agree Larry that there is some (dare I say considerable) ambiguity in the language of the Guidelines. On the other hand, because of the “adopted by ordinance” nature of the Municipal Code the language of Chapter 40 is much less (but not wholly so) ambiguous.
The problem I find most disconcerting is that the same action taken back in 2005, after a long highly-participative public process, set up two very clearly different values.
On the one hand they made the zoning designation M-U subject to the provisions of Article 40.15.060 Height regulations, which says “Structures shall not exceed three stories in height except as provided in Section 40.15.080.” with Section 40.15.080 establishing a FAR limit to constrain the “except” provision, which is a FAR of 1.7 in this case.
On the other hand they amended the Guidelines, which provide guidance for the Trackside site (not specifically by that name) in at least eleven places. Those eleven places are sometimes conflicting. It would have been much easier if those conflicts had been identified and resolved at the time they were created in 2005.
— First, the site is identified as an “underutilized” Opportunity Site on pages 24 and 25.
— Second, the site is identified as a Mixed Use Transition Area in the graphic on page 33.
— Third, the front portion (half?) of the site is identified as a Special Character Area in the graphic on page 33.
— Fourth, the Building Mass and Scale description on page 39 says, “New buildings should be predominantly two and three stories in height.”
— Fifth, the second bullet of the Design Objectives (for Core Expansion) on page 49 says “Predominantly two and three-story buildings should be developed with consideration for four-story elements”
— Sixth, the Building Mass and Scale description on page 58 provides a lot of information, but no specific height standard. The most relevant two bullets for me are, “A new multi-unit structure should not overwhelm existing single family structures in terms of height.” and “Increased building scale and height may be allowed in portions of mixed use special character areas such as along B and 3rd Streets where new development patterns are allowed.”
— Seventh, the Core Transition East section on pages 74 and 75 has no height limitation language
— Eighth, the Core Transition East section on pages 74 and 75 does specifically say, “New mixed-use buildings should be built to the sidewalk edge with landscape courtyards incorporated to vary the building setbacks along the street.” and “The majority of a building should align at the sidewalk edge. A minimum of 50% of the building front shall have a zero foot setback. Other portions of the building front may be setback to provide a plaza or yard.”
— Ninth, the Third Street Special Character Area section on pages 82 and 83 says, “A mix of commercial and traditional residential building types is appropriate in this area. Two and three story buildings should predominate. Careful transition to adjacent single story buildings should be incorporated. New buildings should have two-story facade heights. Upper levels should be set back.”
— Tenth, the Core Expansion North section on pages 48 and 49 actually overlaps with the Third Street Special Character Area immediately adjacent to the Trackside site, and that section says, “This area will serve as the primary expansion area Downtown and should develop as a physical and use transition from the intense Downtown Core. Predominantly two and three-story buildings should be developed with consideration for four-story elements. New development should reflect a storefront character, with buildings located at the sidewalk edge.”
The Zoning Code, as written, amended, selectively interpreted, is more worthy of a major (complete?) re-write than the GP… it is, at best a morass of ambiguous and contradictory provisions. To do it right, will take 12-18 months to complete. It is THAT bad.
The Subdivision Ordinance (and associated City Code Section) had a complete review, with major amendments in 1985-86. It is not perfect, but has been reviewed, as necessary, since then. Not true of the Zoning Code.
The review/amendment should initially be done by City staff, period… prior to adoption of a revision, ‘public participation’ could well be accommodated…
thank you Matt….. that is why I liked you so much on the water board….while the majority of the ADA and AMA and others who have little clue in this USA were trying to poison the children you actually listened and read the research…and learned a lot in the process…
Looking so forward to the next election when you will end up on the council…
I will be first in line to donate….too bad you were on the wrong side of A….you would now be on the council….oh well…but all things happen for a reason…
PS> Once I have simplified a few things, my assistants will assist you in your search….
All the answers are in the paper documents going back to the 70s/80s….and they may not have been put online yet….but they may ….
The internet is so poor at our new place, I am hiring some techie friends to help us out…first with the 1 gigabit fiber optic ….so that we can make this all work.
All my off-topic stuff will go on that server…and the server will actually be located in a better country.
All old documents and videos from the earlier days will be available for all to view….I mean after the VHS tapes are recorded.
I really hope I didn’t throw some of those old tapes away
Hey Ron, perhaps you can comment on this:
In response, I have to say:
I agree with:
Thanks Don
Matt Williams said “Ron, the 2008 Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) made a very clear decision that the city should commit to densification as the preferred method for accommodating future housing needs in Davis.”
Matt that was before we started to see much more dense construction get built and before we ran into neighborhood opposition almost everywhere. It will be interesting to see how the community feels about density when the city does the new general plan.
Just a reminder that OEDNA is not opposed to Mixed Use and not opposed densification at the Trackside site. What we are insisting on is the the existing zoning and guidelines be followed.
The Neighborhood Design Guidelines were developed as forward-thinking Smart growth documents. When they were created, we all knew densification would be required in order to minimize preriferal growth. What the DGLs address is how this can be done without degrading the traditional neighborhoods and their historical resources and while having a well-planned transition to a taller denser downtown.
The graph that Don posted shows how Mixed Use contributes to revenue, but I think we can all agree that six stories, (or five or four) are not appropriate everywhere. In fact, Minicozzi, (the origin of the graph?), in his presentation to the City of Davis, talked about the need for transitional buildings. The recent Form-Based Code presentation to the City Council was very much about how to plan a city into different zones in order to get aesthetic transitions to different height/density areas.
It does not degrade the traditional neighborhood.
It does not degrade any historical resources even if there were any but there are not.
The problem with your expectation for lower transitional buildings is that the Trackside project should be considered core downtown. The downtown is too small to demand the type of transition you and other near core neighbors seem to expect.
http://thecityfix.com/blog/three-ways-land-use-planning-zoning-can-increase-urban-density-mona-qureshi-robin-king/
Actually there ARE historic resources in OED – as noted most recently by the Historical Resources Commission in its 5-0 decision last year that the original (not the new) Trackside would have an impact on those historic resources.
And in it’s current iteration OEDNA believes that it would degrad the current neighborhood, precisely because it violates the design guidelines and current zoning. Our association is happy to densify and live in a very mixed neighborhood with multiple apartment buildings, single family homes, cooperative housing and many businesses. Again, it is the mass and scale of Trackside that we object to and the violations of current zoning.
Educate me then. What are these historic resources? And what would the “impact” be.
I smell a manufactured emotive opposition tool being formed here.
I assume he is referring to this report. http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=5127
Well, for one the oldest homes in Davis are in OED. Built in 1878 and later, these are homes that are connections to the history of Davis. For instance, the Schmeizer home which was built by one of the first business owners in the city who build farm equipment in the late 1800’s. I think Don has posted a link to the City’s list of historic homes.
Perhaps, but they read like a backward looking, no change documents. The guidelines are now 15 years old and do not take into account the City’s current fiscal outlook.
I’m curious as to what you all see as the historical resources of the old east Davis neighborhood that are worth saving. There are perhaps a half-dozen, older homes that obviously fit that definition, but not much else. Are you trying to protect all the ugly two-story apartments or just the eclectic mix of bungalows and what not?
But they are appropriate downtown.
Which would suggest that I and J streets would all be in that transition zone and subject to redevelopment, even parts of K street if you consider the Trackside parcel to be the edge of the downtown core area. That basically means that nearly the entire old east Davis neighborhood should be viewed as a transition zone. With the current mix of houses and apartments, I would argue that it already is a transition zone, just a poorly designed one.
Not everyone favors everything to be new and shiny. If you desire that, I recommend you move to LA.
Ha, or maybe for those that desire no growth and wanting to keep everything status quo without ever upgrading anything I recommend you move to Nebraska.
Not all that new and shiny in LA. Maybe too many movies?
Periodically, this town’s “management” group and any citizen who wanted to or could spend the needed time to participate, would get together and look at the map of Davis and develop a “General Plan”. the plans would include housing on various lot sizes and of various pricing – ie: more upscale larger homes on large lots, and other areas with jam packed apartments.
After all of that, the lines are drawn…
Some locations were not as desirable for housing, and got “light industrial” or other such designations.
The less desirable parcel designations were much cheaper, and thus the developers would zero in on those bargain parcels….and then developers and investors start the long and difficult road to convince that whatever they were proposing is really needed now and they would spend so much time and money and even make folks guilty who did nothing wrong but expect that what they paid for was not going to be ruined…
Why not just tell those developers to go away and come back with a proposal which coincides with the plan, and the zoning and the wishes of the citizens.
We used to have city planners who did that, and if the developers were particularly pushy and generous, then the planning commission could put a halt quickly, and if that was a no go, and the developers had enough pals on the City council then the developers may have a chance and they would push and push, and sometimes even get their way on a project that didn’t need measure j/R citizen approval…
That is when Mike H would come in and remind the city that is not what the citizens bargained for.
Thank you Mike…
Mark
“The guidelines are now 15 years old and do not take into account the City’s current fiscal outlook.”
Then perhaps the best approach would be to revisit the guidelines to update then taking into account the City’s current fiscal outlook rather than attempting development by exception. If new guidelines can be agreed to in a collaborative, consensus building process, then those of us who believe in adherence to rules until they have been changed would not be putting up such opposition. As several have stated, OEDNA is not in opposition to development including mixed use that honors the zoning and design guidelines. According to the data provided by Don, this should improve revenue flow to the city while still respecting the current guidelines.
That is a fine idea, Tia, but the world doesn’t sit still while we wait around for your consensus building process. Until the revisions occur, the City’s process of evolution will be driven by zoning exceptions.
Not for the first time, I will point out that requests for zoning exceptions are the normal course of action in city planning and development all throughout our society. It seems to primarily be the no-change fanatics who act as if zoning regulations and design guidelines were meant to be etched in stone.
oh yes, says one of the developers who asks for an inch and takes a mile.
Back in the 80s/90s and even not that long ago, developers were not so bold to try to buy their way into getting approvals for exceptions…..it is called an exception after all
Mark West says: “I will point out that requests for zoning exceptions are the normal course of action in city planning and development all throughout our society. ”
I’m curious what evidence you have for this assertion? Can you cite figures for the City of Davis, or comparable cities?
Come on Robert, really? Have you ever heard of a conditional use permit? Anyone that demands we stick to a 15 year old planning document is pursuing their self interests at the expense of others.
Zoning variances are part of the State’s government code. I never made a claim about how frequently they are requested in Davis, just that it is a normal part of business in planning and development. Talk with developers or commercial real estate professionals and you will hear the same. Developers have the right to ask, but the jurisdiction does not have to agree. It is one method for a jurisdiction to ‘evolve’ with the changing economy even when its zoning regulations have become dated.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=65001-66000&file=65900-65909.5
It seems to me you are asserting that exceptions to zoning is how planning “should” be done, not that it happens all the time. Which is it?
And of course I’ve heard of conditional use permits – we’ve had a number of them in OED over the years for, including some well-designed projects that have added to the character and value of the neighborhood.
You suggest I am pursuing my “self interests at the expense of others.” But isn’t that what we all do? We choose what values we live by and deemphasize others. You do it all the time in your arguments about growth and business and personal behavior. You choose arguments that in line with your values and de-emphasize or critique the ones you don’t value.
I value neighborhoods that slowly evolve and don’t have abrupt changes. Most neighborhoods in Davis are pretty static except for the people who move in and out. Families come and go. OED is a neighborhood that has evolved for over a century and will continue to do so. How it evolves is a matter of concern to those of us who live here. The notion that a small group of non-residents (although Davis residents for a change) can make such a big change to the neighborhood without consideration of a variety of values (and do it essentially for profit) does not fit with my values for neighborhood growth. You may (and most likely do) disagree with me.
Robert, at some point around 1907 that large factory that existed there was torn down and replaced. I really doubt that happened over much time… maybe a few weeks. I don’t think opposing “abrupt” changes is in the spirit of your argument that the historical “landmarks” would be impacted by this smaller building.
Yes, pursuing self interest is a wonderful thing, but not when it is at the expense of others. We are talking about nebulous and de minimis impacts (don’t like looking at the new building) of three or four residential properties. That is all. It isn’t enough in my view to justify the opposition.
If I lived there I would accept it for several reasons.
1. It was once a 70′ ft building.
2. The project owners came back with a scaled down version.
3. This is SMART development.
4. The city needs all types of housing. This fills a need.
5. There isn’t a huge supply of infill land… each parcel need to maximize utility.
6. This is the alternative when you oppose peripheral development in a city that is growing organically.
7. The city needs tax revenue. We need more good retail space downtown.
I would prefer more peripheral development, but that ship has sailed. I hope you were not one blowing wind at it… because it would mean you are having to eat your peas.
“It seems to me you are asserting that exceptions to zoning is how planning “should” be done”
No, I think our planning documents should be updated regularly to reflect the changing environment. Exceptions allow the City to continue to evolve, to in effect, to change direction when it becomes clear that the original zoning plan isn’t providing for the current needs. Keeping zoning regulations up to date minimizes the need for exceptions, but does not completely get rid of them. In light of our failure to keep our planning documents up to date, exceptions have become more common in town. That is due to our failure, not the developers.
Mark
Just because planning by exception is what we are doing does not make it the right thing to do.
What if we were to say the same with regard to regulations in other parts of our society. Let’s say our laws on banking for example. We would cause havoc throughout our entire society if we took a similar stance. We won’t worry about whether or not a given action is legal or not, after all banking standards were never meant to be written in stone and cultural norms change all the time, so let’s just see if we can get a certain number of elected officials onto our side, change the law without the due process of going through the formal process to do so, but just go ahead with our planned rule breaking and hope we get the requisite number of votes to decide in our favor ? Would you be ok with that ?
Tia, your banking example is an interesting choice of a parallel. When loan applications come into banks they are considered based on a set of written rules, but many loan applications that do not fit precisely within those written guidelines are approved nonetheless.The banking system does not fall into a state of havoc because of those exceptional loan approvals.
Similarly, universities and colleges have a written set of criteria for considering the applications of prospective freshmen. When individual student applications arrive they are considered based on those written rules, but many prospective students do not fit precisely within those written guidelines are accepted nonetheless. The university system does not fall into a state of havoc because of those exceptional acceptance approvals.
http://www.matt4davis.com/
Does this no longer apply? If so, I stand corrected. (Nothing “wrong” with running for council, by the way.)
It is a bit dated (see “Election Day is Tuesday, June 7, 2016”); however, the issues I fought for in that election are still very much the same . . . and I continue to fight for them. The links below describe some thoughts about a number of those key issues.
The Future of Employee Compensation
A Vision for Davis 20 years from now
Economic Development
Cost Containment
Joint Management of Davis and UC Davis Fire Departments
Zoning Variances
Unfunded Liabilities
In addition to the documented Historical resources, http://maps.cityofdavis.org/historic/ the real benefit of Old East Davis is that it is a neighborhood and a community. We talk about walkable & bikeable. We talk about mixed use. Old East Davis lives that – every day. People are out walking and biking around. Take a walk through our neighborhood and you will immediately see that it is a neighborhood. You see people, they say hi. Neighbors do things for each other. People come from other neighborhoods to walk their dogs or ride their bikes through our neighborhood. I know this because people tell me. People I meet on the street and strike up a conversation with. We have shops and stores. We have historic homes and recent apartment buildings. We have a wide variety of multi-plex housing units, co-op housing, high-income, medium-income, and low-income. And it all works. It works because it is well-mixed and no one facet out-shines the others. We are trying to save our neighborhood from ‘downtown creep.’ That is precisely what the transition zoning is designed to do. To repeat what others have said, Old East Davis has had well over a dozen development projects in the last 12 years that have increased density and brought in-fill. And they have been backed by the residents of Old East Davis. (They have also moved VERY quickly through the planning process.) And we still have a great neighborhood. It has worked. It has worked because the projects have stuck to the Design Guidelines. If the Trackside partners had stuck to the Design Guidelines, they would have broken ground by now.
true, LG, and that has been the point all along….but why would some developer want to give up the millions that could be made by ignoring Design Guidelines? obviously following the guidelines wouldn’t bring in nearly the payoff…. and perhaps they thought they could get away with asking for the moon…
Ok. I read the report. All I can say is that is a good thing the members of the Historical Resources Management Commission were not hired by me because I would fire them all (except one). It appears to me that they just ignored the findings of the report done by the Historic Resource Associates and came up with their own activist move. Time to check which neighbors or which NOE people are embedded in that commission. What a crock.
The HRMC writes:
And in doing so, they completely ignored the findings of the report:
Note that, per the report, the old Schmeiser Manufacturing building that occupied that site until 1907 was 70 ft tall. The existing Schmeiser house is 3 1/2 stories and 40 ft tall.
So the commission just ignored this report (except for one lone vote) to do their NOE activism.
Disgusting.
By the way, the old Schmeiser building was for manufacturing. How about we put a 70 foot tall manufacturing building back in that space to bring back the historic character that we apparently are so keen on preserving that we ignore the report and make up our own “impact” opinions?
And who paid for the report submitted? The Trackside proponents, of course. Part of the process of allowing growth to happen to do so in an orderly way and to respect the many values (need for densification, historical values, to name a couple) that are found in our neighborhoods. The zoning ordinance recognizes that different neighborhoods have different characters and uses. I would suggest that the Commission did not ignore the findings in the report. They read it, they held a hearing on it, and they disagreed with its findings. You can always come to commission meetings and comment, as both the proponents and opponents of the original project did. Did you really think that a report sponsored by the project applicants would find a significant impact?
Since the commission is so keyed in on the historical narrative, then a 70′ tall manufacturing building should be supported. Let’s hear you wiggle out of that.
Mark
Just because planning by exception is what we are doing does not make it the right thing to do.
What if we were to say the same with regard to regulations in other parts of our society. Let’s say our laws on banking for example. We would cause havoc throughout our entire society if we took a similar stance. We won’t worry about whether or not a given action is legal or not, after all banking standards were never meant to be written in stone and cultural norms change all the time, so let’s just see if we can get a certain number of elected officials onto our side, change the law without the due process of going through the formal process to do so, but just go ahead with our planned rule breaking and hope we get the requisite number of votes to decide in our favor ? Would you be ok with that ?
Tia, your banking example is an interesting choice of a parallel. When loan applications come into banks they are considered based on a set of written rules, but many loan applications that do not fit precisely within those written guidelines are approved nonetheless.The banking system does not fall into a state of havoc because of those exceptional loan approvals.
Similarly, universities and colleges have a written set of criteria for considering the applications of prospective freshmen. When individual student applications arrive they are considered based on those written rules, but many prospective students do not fit precisely within those written guidelines are accepted nonetheless. The university system does not fall into a state of havoc because of those exceptional acceptance approvals.
“just go ahead with our planned rule breaking…”
No one is breaking any rules, Tia. Requests for exceptions are allowed and completely within the rules.
By law, that decision about zoning variances rests with the City, first with the Planning Commission and then with the City Council acting as the appeals board. By law, those two entities have the right to make any changes to zoning that they deem appropriate. If you are interested in ‘playing within the rules’ as you say, you have to accept that zoning exceptions are a legal part of the game, and are decided by a majority vote by our representatives. You may not like it, but that is the law.
Frankly
“Let’s hear you wiggle out of that.”
There is nothing there to “wiggle out of”. The manufacturing building is not currently in existence. The argument that is being made is to preserve that in our neighborhood which is in existence, not to recreate a distant history. Your analogy falls completely flat. I have no problem arguing the merits of the project, but to claim this kind of false equivalency does nothing to forward your position.
If the argument is preservation of historical significance, then since the previous historical owners of those residences lived next to a 70′ tall manufacturing building, then the current owners of those residences fall completely flat using the historical preservation argument unless they are also willing to support a 70′ manufacturing building. Or maybe a 45′ multi-use retail and residential building is really not so bad after all. Especially given that one of the “historical” homes is 40′ tall.
I think the neighborhood here should be labeled as hysterical rather than historical.
Only a water tower was 70′ high. A bit of a stretch to claim it was a 70′ building, and irrelevant anyway since the number of stories in Transition Zone East is specified in current Design Guidelines. You can’t simultaneously claim the Design Guidelines are out-of-date (wrong) and then claim that the neighbors shouldn’t complain because of a water town torn down more than half-a-century ago. Well, I guess you can claim that, but it is hypocritical and defies logic.
Guaranteed that if the Trackside building as proposed had a water tower, that would be the height used in all the arguments of opposition.
Nevertheless, we are talking about a building that is 45′ tall.
And one of the “historical” houses is 40′ tall.
Do you want to dispute this?
And you cannot make a case that Trackside as designed impacts the historic essence of these four homes when the history essence included a big-ass manufacturing building right in this same spot.
Matt:
Not sure if you ever fully responded, regarding the question of density. However, you did state that you thought that density should be considered.
In response to your questions to me, I put forth a suggestion that density can be measured using the number of dwelling units per a given area. Of course, that would not necessarily provide us with the exact number of people living in a given area, but it should still provide a rough idea.
In general, do you think a maximum density (essentially based on zoning) is an appropriate goal for any given area? If so, any ideas on how to establish a maximum density for a given area?
Not sure that I have much else to add, at this point. Just thought you might want to share your thoughts.
Ron, if you look at my 6:39 response to you (see LINK) I very clearly answered regarding the question of density, specifically:
With that said, let’s engage your proposed metric . . . the number of dwelling units per a given area. You go on to say, “Of course, that would not necessarily provide us with the exact number of people living in a given area, but it should still provide a rough idea” and that comment of yours sums up the biggest challenge that a count of the number of dwelling units faces.
The Sterling proposal includes a mix of studio, 2-bedroom, 4-bedroom and 5-bedroom units totaling 203 units and 727 bedrooms. The revised Trackside proposal includes a mix of 27 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom rental residential units and ~9,000 square feet of retail space. The 203 unit portion of the Sterling parcel is 5.16 acres. The Trackside project parcel is 0.694 acres. Using your criteria of number of dwelling units per a given area, Sterling calculates to a density of 39.34 units per acre and Trackside calculates to a density of 38.90 units per acre (virtually identical calculations). Do you see these two projects as being comparably dense?
To add another layer to the discussion, the Chen Building includes a mix of 4 housing units, a number of live/work units and a substantial amount of retail space, all on a 0.214 acre proposed project. Calculating the Floor Area Ratio for that project is included in the September 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report . . . 23,600 square feet of building on a 9,322 square foot parcel yields a FAR of 2.53, but what is the density calculation for the Chen Building?
Note that the Chen Building FAR is 2.53 and the Trackside FAR is 1.69 (or possibly 1.62). Despite those comparative calculations, yesterday’s article stated that:
Mass, Density, Floor Area Ratio how do we sort out this stew pot?