Next week, the Davis Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the Trackside Center project, as the city has prepared a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) Initial Study and intends to adopt the SCEA as part of the project. Prior to that adoption, there is a mandatory 30-day public review period.
The Trackside project in its latest iteration proposes to redevelop two existing commercial buildings just to the east of the railroad tracks north of Third Street.
The current design has a new four-story, 47,983-square-foot building with 8,950 square feet of commercial retail space on the ground floor, and 27 apartment units on the three floors above.
The project also includes 30 covered and uncovered parking spaces, an outdoor plaza on the west side, landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, alley improvements, and other site improvements.
According to the report, the proposal would change the existing alleyway from a two-way to a one-way alley.
Apartment units include a mix of studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units ranging in size from 705 square feet to 1,537 square feet plus balconies. Thirty parking stalls are provided in a mix of covered and uncovered spaces. In addition to the apartment units and retail spaces, the building includes common areas for a manager’s office, lobby, mail room, bike storage, utility room, trash room, a lounge and roof terrace.
The city “has determined that the proposed project qualifies as a Transit Priority Project under the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21155 for implementation of a Sustainable Communities Strategy. Consistent with the requirements for a Transit Priority Project, a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to PRC Section 21155.2.”
Staff writes, “All potentially significant or significant effects required to be identified in the initial study have been identified and analyzed and with respect to each significant effect on the environment either of the following apply: i) changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance; or ii) those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.”
The original project was envisioned at six stories, but neighbors complained that the project would block views and have adverse impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. Of particular concern was the 
six-story design and the perceived lack of communication between the applicants and the neighborhoods.
In March of 2016, the group of local investors announced that they needed to create a new proposal in hopes of generating more neighborhood support.
They hosted a public workshop in order to receive comments.
The result was a scaled-down project that was submitted in September 2016.
In their application they note, “The new building will be one story of street-level commercial uses, three stories (top story is massed toward the west and south) of rental residences and parking, tucked under the north end of the building, continuing out to the western edge of the site.”
The applicants write, “Third Street is the major east-west connector street from the Core Area of Davis to UC Davis. This building would serve as the eastern anchor to the long-envisioned ‘Main Street’ mixed-use corridor.” They add, “The site is at the nexus of many different land uses and zoning: railroad, rock yard, commercial and a traditional neighborhood. The proposed building has different architectural styles and setbacks/stepbacks on each façade both in recognition and to aid in the transition of the varying uses, scales and characters that surround the site.”
While the project is pared down from the original May of 2015 six-story building, the current proposal still seeks to achieve increased residential density in the downtown combined with new commercial and retail space for “transit-oriented infill and sustainable redevelopment.”
However, the neighbors remained opposed to the revised proposal.
In an op-ed published last October from the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association, five members of the board stated they support “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.”
They argued, “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.”
They argued, “Zoning by exception defeats this purpose.
“The newly proposed, four-story Trackside Center fails to make an appropriate transition in any direction,” they write. “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.”
Meanwhile, the process continues to proceed. Prior to adoption of the SCEA, there will be a 30-day public review period for interested individuals to submit written comments. The public review period began July 11, 2017, and ends August 11, 2017.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A four-story structure seems too large, here. Completely overshadows the surrounding small houses. (Quite drastically.)
Wondering about the impacts regarding the (shared) alley, as well. (Including the change to one-direction traffic flow.)
Isn’t there four story buildings in close proximity?
Um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.
South: One-story business row.
East: One-story single family houses and detached accessory units.
North: Zero-story rock yard.
West: Zero-story railroad followed by zero story parking lot to-be-built. (was to be the two-story office structure, but that project was scrapped)
Beyond that by a block, some two-story residential and business – nearest tall structure is the Chen Building, over a block to the southwest, and in the downtown, away from residences, and across the tracks.
With the Design Guidelines, this is the transition zone from downtown, from taller buildings to smaller residences in the valued historic district. If what some believe is the future is form-based planning, this would be the ‘missing middle’ from large downtown building to transition into the historic neighborhood.
Or, if we can just push Trackside through — ignoring the clear intent of the Design Guidelines to have a smooth transition to a future, taller downtown — then Trackside becomes the wart-mountain-scar and everything around it becomes the slope off the new wart-apex from which more warts will blossom.
Warts!
FWIW, the USDA parking garage is quite a bit closer.
It’s about the same distance, a little closer from closest edge to closest edge. I was thinking of business or residential buildings, but it’s certainly a tall building nearby. One distinct difference is Trackside is in Old East Neighborhood and under the Core Area Plan, whereas both Chen and the parking garage are downtown.
Look I think there are legitimate reasons to oppose or at least question the project, but I think we are going to have to build upwards in the core and I think we are going to see 5 and 6 story buildings in the downtown. I think a new two story building is stupid and a waste of space and three stories is probably only marginally better. You’re looking at a CASP plan in a vacuum because its going to change in the next two years. Now maybe that means they ought to wait for the city to work out the CASP first, that I don’t know.
Four stories is only “marginally better” than three, for those who advocate for more housing and an increased number of new residents in the city.
However, four stories is “significantly worse” than three, for those who already live near the development.
This is a battle that will play out over-and-over, as the city tries to cram in more development. (Apparently, in the hope that increasing the number of new residents will somehow increase the vacancy rate.)
That’s the problem that you’re going to have when you try to limit growth in an area and a university that is growing. The other option would be going out onto the periphery, but that seems like a non-starter.
David: That’s why it’s important for the situation with UCD (and the 5,300 acres that it owns) be resolved. Of course, there are surrounding communities which help prevent the situation from being a true “crisis”, even if it’s not an ideal long-term solution.
The simple reality is that with all the ‘bells and whistles’ that we require from developers, we have priced ourselves out of the ‘market’ for 2 or 3 story redevelopment projects as they no longer make financial sense. I don’t know if this particular project will be approved, but something eventually will be done on the site and more likely than not it will be at least four stories tall. Past decisions have consequences, unintended though they may be.
Understood on your point, but mine is more basic than that and that is given limited space, going lower than four stories especially in the town doesn’t make sense to me in 2017.
I completely agree with your sentiment, it doesn’t make sense, but I have felt that way for a number of years.
I think that’s true and I have no problem with that, in the downtown. The problem is Trackside is in a transition zone to single family historical district. Other problem is “City” wants to change the definition of the “core” by swallowing up the Old neighborhoods into it. That doesn’t change what the areas are, it’s just bad pool.
And yet that’s exactly what has been built over the last few years downtown, and the proposal for taller is outside of downtown in the transition zone. What the F— is wrong with this picture?
Alan raises some good points. They illuminate (for me) how badly we need a General Plan Update. Old East Davis indeed does have historic buildings, but also has 2-story and 3-story apartment complexes, some of which are cinder block construction. Davis probably needs a formally designated historic district where historic buildings could be moved to (like the two homes across 3rd Street from the SPCA Thrift Store. many other cities have created historic magnets like that, and given the frame construction of most of our historic residences, moving them from one site to another would be technologically straightforward.
Where I might disagree is that we need to re-think what the core and transition areas look like. If we are not going to build out, then I think we have to look at the downtown as needing 5-6 stories of vertical mixed use. The transition areas would need to be 3 to 4 stories. And the neighoborhoods about 2 stories. That gets you your transition.
I agree with Matt, this is where not having a current general plan hurts our planning. I simply believe putting a two story building in the transition area is a waste of space utilization.
The Trackside property is part of the downtown core as shown in the CASP map. If it is part of a transition zone, it is at the core end of that zone, not the neighborhood end.
The railroad tracks create a logical delineation, between downtown and beyond. This is already reflected in the differences between types of buildings, on each side of those tracks.
Trackside is not downtown.
Those pushing for a general plan update are (usually) the same individuals who want to force “planning by exception”. They simply want more growth/development than the current plan allows, and are pushing for a document that would make this easier.
In reference to another commenter, moving historic buildings from their original location obliterates context. It should be viewed as an absolute “last resort”, not a “plan”.
You keep saying this: “They simply want more growth/development than the current plan allows”
This is a false statement. There is nothing in the current plan that prevents the amount of growth proposed by Trackside.
David: I stand by my comment, as written above. You’ve added your own wording to it.
You can stand by your comment, but it’s false. Not only that but the 1% Growth Guideline comes from a 2008 resolution (08-019) not the General Plan.
As has been pointed out before, the property is ‘downtown’ as defined in the Core Area Specific Plan. Your assertion is false.
If you bothered to read the existing General Plan you would know that it calls for significantly more development than has occurred, so again, your assertion is false.
Mark: Stating that the current plan allows for more development than has already occurred does not “prove” that my statement is false. In fact, it doesn’t prove anything.
My comment regarding Trackside is not “false”, as written. Suggest you read more carefully.
Again, the people that are pushing hardest for a general plan update are usually the same folk who aren’t satisfied with the amount of growth allowed under the current plan.
Actually, it is being driven by those opposed to ‘planning by exception’ which covers the gamut from no-change/no-growth to pro-development. Again, your assertion is false.
Do you not want a general plan update? It’s supposed to be done periodically, per state law, but I think only the housing element has a specific requirement as to frequency. Why would you not want to update the General Plan?
He’s made it clear, he doesn’t want a new general plan.
Give 2:1 odds those questions will not be answered.
Glad to hear you stand by your comment, particularly,
Very untrue! The public alley, lying between the tracks and the SF homes is the only ‘logical’ delineation. West of the alley (close proximity), ZERO SF residences. East of the alley (or its ‘extension’, Rowe Place), no overtly commercial uses.
Expression: measure twice, cut once. Logical land use corollary: think twice, opine/pontificate once.
But, by all means, stand behind that portion of your comment. It is truly telling.
What does that have to do with my comment? (Also, as you recently noted, vertical mixed use is not subject to the 1% growth cap.)
Stating that my comment is “false” without stating a reason does nothing to “enlighten” me, if that’s your goal.
Your comment was: ” Those pushing for a general plan update are (usually) the same individuals who want to force “planning by exception”. They simply want more growth/development than the current plan allows, and are pushing for a document that would make this easier.”
So what is false:
1. The current General Plan does not limit growth, a resolution does
2. The Trackside Development is not inhibited or impacted by the growth limitations
David: Not seeing the connection between my comment, and your explanation.
Note that my comment was more general in nature, and not specifically addressing Trackside. (Wondering why you had no concern with the initial comment from Matt, who specifically mentioned Trackside in relation to the general plan.)
I don’t know what to say them. The General Plan doesn’t govern the growth rate, a council resolution does. That alone contradicts your statement.
David: I should have said that Matt’s comment “referenced” the Trackside area, but did not specifically mention it.
Again, I’ve noticed that those who seem most interested in a general plan update are usually the same folks who want to increase development/densify. The reaction I’m getting here is no exception. You’re adding statements/qualifiers which aren’t in my statement.
I quoted your exact words, you can’t wiggle off the hook here. You posted things that were fundamentally not true.
If you want to specifically address the incorrect portion of that statement, go ahead.
At the same time, I’d ask you to explain why many of the same individuals who have demonstrated a strong interest in development/density are the same individuals who are pushing for a general plan update. (That includes almost everyone who’s commented on this article, so far.)
I have yet to see anyone on the “slow-growth” side of things pushing for a general plan update.
Why?
I’ve already done it twice. “than the current plan allows” is inaccurate.
More importantly, why are some of the usual, pro-development individuals so interested in a general plan update? (David: That includes you, in this case.)
I’m neither a big supporter of growth nor the general plan. There are reasons to do a new one, there are reasons not to.
Just one example. Own up, to what you advocate. (Especially when it’s in the same thread/article.) It doesn’t mean you’re “wrong”, but it does mean that you’re advocating for more density/development (as I believe you’ve previously acknowledged). You’re also a strong advocate of “Innovation Centers” (beyond the city’s borders), possibly with housing.
Again, those pushing for more development appear to be the same ones most interested in a general plan update. They (including you) have not explained their interest in doing so.
Do you oppose updating the General Plan, Ron?
What I said was I am not a “big supporter of growth.” While I agree that I advocated that we build upwards in the downtown. On the other hand, I’m opposed to peripheral residential growth.
David Greenwald said . . . “I’m neither a big supporter of growth nor the general plan. There are reasons to do a new one, there are reasons not to.”
David, what do you see as the reasons not to?
That topic is probably worth an article in its own right.