“(T)he zoning is the zoning until the city council changes the zoning. Sometimes we feel that there’s certainty because of the zoning and because of the design guidelines, essentially three city council members can change that.” – Mayor Pro Tem Brett Lee
Last Wednesday, the Vanguard held its monthly Conclave on the issue of the Future of the Davis Downtown, with discussions about downtown parking and the Core Area Specific Plan.
Here we highlight some points from Mayor Pro Tem Brett Lee:
“Imagine all the things you’d like to see our downtown become over the next five to ten years. We have the pebbles in our shoes, the things that bother us, but then the more forward thinking ideas. Amazingly those are the things that I want our downtown to become as well.
“The downtown is unique in Davis for Davisites because it is a place that Davis has had to work fairly hard to keep as a unique downtown as opposed to many of the towns along the I-80 corridor, who have sort of allowed their downtowns not to flourish but to sort of fend for themselves and die out.
“You see examples of Big Box on the edge of the town and Davis has had to take a pretty active role to prevent – as a result we have a very attractive downtown that we want to maintain and actually improve…
“Some people are focused on how do we build to increase that vibrancy and allow more people to work and shop downtown. There’s a variety of mixed views…
“The thing is, we all have different thoughts and we also know about Davis Downtown… The downtown belongs to everybody. We had really interesting emails when we talked about the Core Area Specific Plan Update. We had an email or two which basically said, the only people who should be on the task force are property owners in the downtown. Reminded me of 1776, where you only get a vote if you’re sort of a white property owner because obviously you don’t have any skin in the game if you are not a property owner. That was interesting.
“What I did not see an email advocating for, but I’ve seen it in other areas is ‘term of residence’ in the city of Davis. The new person coming in has less of say than someone who has been coming 
here for 30 years or 50 years. Often times when people come and address us at city council, they say I moved here in (blank) – they don’t say I moved here in 2015 and whatever. They say I moved here in 1970 when I was a student at… It kind of goes on because length of tenure is important.
“The point is not to discourage people from providing input here, I think new residents comes in brings a fresh eye and fresh observation.”
Later he talked more about the Core Area Specific Plan…
“Four years when I first got here… Lucas Frerichs and I, we were on the Core Area Specific Plan Task force and we met with (various people) and staff members to come up with what we hoped would have been sort of a clearer, more streamlined approach to what our downtown should have looked like. Initially we thought we would just take care of a few easy items – three years later having accomplished essentially nothing there was a serendipity where local folks, Judy Corbett and a few others, were involved in bringing some people, giving some presentations. One at the Vet’s Memorial and one at city hall chambers, about different ways communities were planning.
“Ultimately through that introduction city staff and city council agreed to go along with form-based code. Form-based code is a little bit different… But the idea is to plan for our downtown with the future in mind and in a more simplified way, so there’s more certainty both for the residents, the business people who make use of space, whether that’s retail or office or other use, and also for the property owners. So they would have a better sense of what would be allowed and not allowed.
“When you talk to people, the vast majority are very optimistic about this process. This group that’s coming in to help us with the form-based code development will assisted by the community members (appointed to the advisory commission).
“I would like to add a caution, it sometimes surprises people – the zoning is the zoning until the city council changes the zoning. Sometimes we feel that there’s certainty because of the zoning and because of the design guidelines, essentially three city council members can change that.
“This is a very important piece because a lot of people spend a lot of time working on the General Plan and they’ll spend a lot of time on this updated form-based code for the Core Area Specific Plan, but ultimately you need council members who will agree to follow what’s been worked on.
“We have some good examples of that and we have some not so good examples of that. I think Maynard Skinner is here, I thought he was here, and he’ll be happy to share his thoughts on what happened with Mission Residence. That’s a good example of where the neighbors in the core area had come up with a fairly recent review and plan for what that neighborhood should look like and it was not adhered to by the council majority.
“We could take this building here and make it eight stories… That’s not the way to do planning. That’s not the way for the community to benefit in the long run. If ultimately we think it should be eight stories, we should have a planning process that has a vision not only for that specific parcel but for the parcel adjacent to it.
“Ultimately we may think we want to get to eight stories, but one dimension we don’t explore very often is time. In 2030 we might go to four stories. In 2050, we might go to eight. We ultimately may want to get to a certain place but it doesn’t have to happen overnight.
“We’re not going to talk the specifics of Trackside, but I will take one cheap shot at Trackside. Six stories… I’m not sure… actually there were investors who invested in Trackside and thought that six stories was fine, that they (invested) their hard-earned money and thought that that was an acceptable proposal.
“I’m not real comfortable with that gigantic change overnight. If on the other hand they said in 2050 we would like Trackside to be six stories, that’s a different thing.
“Time is a dimension that we haven’t made use of because we are very reactive to specific developer proposals. But as a community, as we look at the Core Area Specific Plan, we’re planning for the future. It’s not based on some individual ask by developers, with a specific parcel we want to do something. We have the opportunity to make wise thoughtful decisions that balance the need to keep our unique nice downtown – the reality is that the world is changing.”
To catch the whole discussion, click on the video below:
Some great insight here from Brett. The message I read can all be boiled down to what he said near the end, “we are reactive.” Yes, that is definitely how it feels to me. We aren’t planning. We are reacting. Ace wants a parking lot? We don’t hold that request up to comparison of the vision we have for downtown… we react, and will deal with the future effects of that decision tomorrow…. when we react to another request.
Any “planning” we do needs to necessarily – and by definition of the word PLAN – be looking toward the future. We don’t do that. We must do that. How do we do that?
That’s a pretty good point as well.
This is a really interesting comment that hits at the core of the issue. The first Core Area Specific Plan back in 1961, was a forward looking document that talked about the needs of the City 25 years in the future, and how the core area needed to change to meet those needs.
I don’t believe that the subsequent plans have had that same forward looking perspective.
I think it is interesting and informative to compare the 1961 plan with the 2013 version as many of the problems we are dealing with today were present or predicted in 1961, and were addressed with specific, proposed solutions. Unfortunately, they are still problems today largely because the community did not heed the warning found in the next sentence of the quote above.
We need to return to the type of planning we demonstrated in 1961 instead of continuing along the lines of our more recent attempts. Good planning isn’t an issue of maintaining what exists today, it is an issue of imagining a future 20-50 years out and proposing solutions to the expected problems the community will face. Read the 1961 plan, it is only 48 pages long and details a problem-solving community mindset that seems to be lacking today.
More accurately, the 1996 Core Area Specific Plan, as amended. Reprinted in 2013.
Yes, after which 1961 Plan, the city population proceed to grown grow 163% by 1970, followed by 56% growth in the decade of the 70s, 26% in the 80s and 30% in the 90s.
Is that the type of forward looking growth opportunity you might advocate for the upcoming decades?
It is worthwhile keeping in mind that it was during decades of the 1960s and 1970s, much of Downtown core – including all of the surface parking lots we know today – was redeveloped.
Is there not a community-level context to be considered, and how such a redevelopment strategy might impact the larger community, our neighborhoods, our potential need for an enlarged urban boundary, required investments in public transit infrastructure, together with addressing the declining school enrollment trends and needs of the senior community and ramifications?
To your point, where should we start first in planning for a repurposed Downtown that will best serve the larger community needs some 20-50 years in the future?
Where and why do we expect the investors will arrive to fulfill a new, updated FBC based plan? What are the key drivers for urban reinvestment that you see as transforming our Davis economy during the upcoming decades? More housing – I think we all understand that opportunity. But what is it that will drive the migration of new investment, professional jobs and other well-paying research jobs to the community?
Is the issue of transforming today’s employment base of concern to the future of your vision? Are the concerns and needs of potential, would-be new employers of any interest or concern to those seeking a comprehensive redevelopment strategy for the Downtown and the community? What is keeping these employers and jobs from coming today?
Hopefully, the FBC process will be sufficiently comprehensive to address these and other related questions.
John D said . . . “Yes, after which 1961 Plan, the city population proceed to grow 163% by 1970, followed by 56% growth in the decade of the 70s, 26% in the 80s and 30% in the 90s.”
To put John D’s statement into context, the historical statistics for UCD Enrollment illuminate the following parallel statement:
“After 1961 Plan, the UCD Total Enrollment proceeded to grown grow 163% by 1970, followed by 42% growth in the decade of the 70s, 27% in the 80s and 7% in the 90s.”
To extend the timeline toward the present the city population proceeded to grow 9% in the 2000s, while UCD Total Enrollment grew 21% in that same period,
For the aggregate period from 1970 to 2010 the city population grew 179% and UCD’s Total Enrollment grew 135%.
The plan did not create the growth, it recognized that population growth was likely to happen (based on population studies) and made plans to deal with the impacts. Today, we have those in the community who believe we can simply stop population growth by limiting housing availability. Which is the more rational approach?
Over the decades the City grew at roughly the same rate as the University and the surrounding region, up until the point that we decided to put an artificial cap on growth. Our failure to respond to the changing environment around the City resulted in the obvious problems that we are dealing with today (many of which were predicted in 1961).
Cities and counties do limit growth and development. One need look no further than Marin, Sonoma, Napa counties (and the individual cities within those counties). All of those counties have substantial areas devoted to agriculture and open space, despite development pressures to build on those lands. Even today, some (no doubt) would like to build on those agricultural and open spaces. (In fact, there were previous plans to do so, in some areas.)
Even San Francisco has height limits, to ensure that new developments don’t overwhelm existing neighborhoods.
Actually, I believe that areas in San Francisco have limits on height, number of floors/stories, AND number of units that a given property is zoned for.
Without such controls, chaos would be “the norm”. (One might argue that it’s already pretty chaotic, in San Francisco.)
I realize that it would be more accurate to state that the examples I’ve provided above have vastly slowed down the rate of growth/development that would have otherwise been “accommodated” (thereby ruining those areas if that had occurred, in my opinion).
This type of “fight” has been going on all over California for years, and is heating up again now (due to the economic/housing recovery). Davis is not unique, in this.
Ron,
By implication, you appear to be suggestung the regions and cities of Yolo, Napa, Sonona and Marin are somehow similar because they contain some agriculture and open space. When in reality, Napa and Sonoma sit in the heart of the most productive wine producing region the world. Both their products and their tourism generate copious retail sales and tax revenues for their region. In other words, their “industries” produce copious economic activity AND taxable revenues for their region. Do you not understand this as a quantifiable distinction worthy of discussion and analysis? Same is true for “wealthy” Marin county. Would you care to opine on the essential similarities of our two regions? What are the points of your comparisons?
John: My post was in response to Mark’s point. That is, by preserving farmland and open space that would otherwise be developed, cities and counties (including Yolo, for that matter) are in fact limiting population growth and development. The same thing occurs by establishing “urban growth boundaries” in those areas. Cities such as San Francisco accomplish the same thing, by maintaining height, density, and number of unit restrictions on properties.
Seems like you’re comparing farmland which generates economic activity, vs. housing (with is generally a money-loser for local governments). Therefore, I’m not entirely sure of your point, other than the fact that some agricultural lands create more economic value than other agricultural lands. (Even that is not totally “stable”, since farmers can switch from low-value annual crops, to higher-value “nut” crops, for example.)
In any case, much of the motivation to preserve agricultural zoning does not appear to be related to the economic value that it preserves. (For example, there are vast, almost-empty private ranchlands in Western Marin which do not appear to generate a great deal of economic activity, but are “valued” by locals and others, nonetheless.) In such cases, I am reasonably certain that much of the motivation has more to do with ensuring that growth/development do not destroy remaining open space, and to ensure that local infrastructure remains adequate to serve the population.
Wrong… redevelopment can ‘increase development’, and procreation and immigration/migration can (and does) increase population… rest assured, Davis could grow 3 X in ‘development’ and 6 X in population without changing its footprint… unlikely, and would require zoning changes…
Business/industrial growth and population growth will happen… it is the nature of things… the question comes down to ‘time, place, and manner’…
I think Howard is largely correct. There is no doubt Davis is not alone in limiting growth, but it does appear to be the most extreme example.
Howard: You state that I’m “wrong”, and then you provide examples which (if anything) support my point. (That is, cities and counties do, in fact, limit the amount of development in a given area that would otherwise occur.) This ultimately limits the amount of population in a given area, as well. (Or, at least drastically reduces the rate of population growth in a given area.)
David: Davis might be “extreme” in your view, when compared to those communities which immediately surround Davis. (Not sure that’s the best comparison to use.) I can assure you that the same issues and battles are occurring in the communities I mentioned (including battles of density).
Woodland has an urban limit line. It obviously hasn’t constrained residential or population growth in Woodland. Solano County has a measure which requires a countywide vote in order to develop outside current city boundaries. That obviously hasn’t in any way limited residential or population growth in the cities of Solano County. Urban limit lines and measures like what Solano County has can be very effective tools for controlling the direction and location of growth. They haven’t really limited the amount of development, they’ve just established clearly where that development can occur.
There is no doubt that Davis and other entities have limited residential development, but those efforts have had no impact on the rate of population expansion (growth). All that they do is force people to live in more and more crowded conditions, commute further, and raise the cost of housing for everyone, with the obvious impacts for the community.
This discussion started with Darreldd’s comment about planning. Planning involves preparing for the changes that are expected in the region. In the case of Davis, that includes preparing for the ever expanding number of people who live in the region and who live, work or go to school in Davis. Supplying appropriate housing opportunities for those people is a primary responsibility of the City, and that is something that may be accomplished without paving over a single additional acre of what is now farmland. There are many reasonable approaches to deal with the problems, but hiding our heads someplace dark while denying reality isn’t one of them.
Mark: “There is no doubt that Davis and other entities have limited residential development, but those efforts have had no impact on the rate of population expansion (growth).”
That is a completely ludicrous statement, and lacks any credibility or logic whatsoever. There is no doubt that Davis (for example) would be a MUCH larger city (including population) if allowed to occur.
Even for you, it’s difficult to believe you would make such a statement.
And, as entire regions (such as the Bay Area, the region, and ultimately the state itself) implements more “controls”, then the amount of population growth is more restricted on an even broader scale.
The entire county of Marin has a very slow population growth rate (despite its proximity to San Francisco), and its overall desirability. Much of that desirability is related to the fact that they’ve taken steps to preserve open space.
To suggest that allowing more development to occur won’t impact the amount of population in a given area is so absurd that it’s not even worth addressing, further.
Don: Regarding urban limit lines:
It partly depends upon “who” controls the urban limit lines (e.g., developer-friendly councils/government, vs. voters). They’re not all implemented the same way. (And, one can argue that even council-controlled urban limit lines “restrict” the amount of growth/development that would otherwise occur.)
They are part of the General Plan. “Developer-friendly councils” are elected by the voters.
How have the no/slow growth policies in Davis impacted the population of Yolo County? The Sacremento Region? UCD? Not at all as the population continues to rise unabated. They have only forced people into less desirable living situations and created a greater negative impact on the environment (increased VMT).
The population will continue to increase in Davis and the surrounding region, and the City should plan for that reality, not ignore it (or claim it doesn’t exist).
Mark: “How have the no/slow growth policies in Davis impacted the population of Yolo County? The Sacremento Region? UCD?”
You’re now “expanding” the argument.
Regarding Yolo county, I strongly suspect that factors such as the Williamson Act, farmland mitigation requirements, and county policies to preserve farmland have, in fact, impacted the amount of population growth in Yolo county.
Regarding the Sacramento Region, I’m not sure what controls exist. However, we do know that development in floodplains is allowed (e.g., Natomas) as long as taxpayers pick up the tab for levee improvements (and perhaps inevitable recovery efforts, in the future). Not sure that areas such as Natomas and Elk Grove are good “role models”. Nevertheless, I believe that even those areas require agricultural mitigation lands to be set aside, as development occurs. (And yes – that will also impact the amount of development/growth in those areas.)
Regarding UCD, that is the one factor/entity that the city will have to confront, at some point. However, that’s already been discussed.
You forgot to add: ” . . . whose campaigns are usually financially supported by developers”. (In contrast to “slow-growth” candidates, who usually don’t have as much financial support and start off with a competitive disadvantage.)
(Not referring to Davis, although I’d suggest that the current council might generally be more supportive of development than the overall population of Davis.)
No, I am not expanding my argument, Ron, I have been completely consistent stating that population growth is a regional issue. It is you who continually attempts to falsely narrow the issue to Davis only.
Mark: There are regional planning bodies (such as SACOG), as well. Davis is meeting (and I believe, exceeding) its “fair share” growth allotment.
And again, Marin provides a good example of an entire, large county that is successfully limiting the amount of new development (and accompanying growth).
I understand the rate of population growth has been slowing statewide, compared to decades past. I believe there’s been an ongoing cultural shift, regarding this. And, this shift in goals has been reflected in plans.
Forgot to mention: At one point, there were plans to build a freeway out to Pt. Reyes. No doubt, this would have generated significant “economic activity”, and would have opened up surrounding lands for development. Although this was supported by many ranchers at the time, it was ultimately rejected. (There’s a PBS-produced documentary, regarding the effort to prevent that freeway and related development.)
Such efforts were essentially a societal rejection of the type of “1950’s-1960’s” plans that Mark referred to, above.
Out of curosity, are there any other posters on this thread who work for a profit-seeking, tax-paying employer?
Aside from being the largest creators of jobs (nationwide), without them in the local employment mix all local taxes fall to the individual residents.
#crickets#
Non-answer is an answer.
Yes. Well, I am a profit-seeking tax-paying owner and employer. But not in the Core Area.
Howard
“Business/industrial growth and population growth will happen… it is the nature of things… the question comes down to ‘time, place, and manner’…”
This to me is a very valid observation which I would like to build on. Growth is a natural phenomenon as is overgrowth. From a medical & social perspective, growth to some optimal limit is desirable. To pretend that there is no optimal limit is incorrect as an organism or population that overgrows its ability to support itself will decline and or die. One supposed advantage that human populations have is that we can appreciate and act on this truth rather than just having it occur to us by the dictates of nature as occurs to other species. But we have the advantage of awareness only if we are willing to plan not just react.
In the terms of my specialty, family planning, is the recognition of what resources are available to us in the present and what we are likely to achieve in the future and plan our family size based on those realities. Those who chose for religious or personal reasons to just let our bodies determine how many children we will have will either be able to successfully increase their resources, or live in increasingly spare circumstances until such time as they have over grown their family resources and are in need of outside assistance. However, if a couple that decides in advance how many children they desire, they can plan their resources accordingly or proactively rather than reactively.
I see community growth in much the same way. Just as any couple may have to negotiate what the optimal family size will be, this is also true for our community. Some would have preferred fewer than we have now, some are ok with current size but would prefer no further expansion, and some feel that we should be totally driven by demand, however they see that as optimally measured.
Anyone reading my commentary over the past 10 years knows that my philosophy is in favor of problem prevention and proactivity. I think it is time for us to stop pointing fingers at who is responsible for what we consider undesirable in our current circumstances, ( the “I told you to take the pill “phenomena) take a new comprehensive look at the situation we are facing now, in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and decide through a collaborative process such as is currently being planned by the city council which I fully support. I do not favor regressing to some point in the past that fits our preferred mode of thinking and suggest that we “go back to that”. I prefer looking at what we have now and what may be coming in the next couple of decades with fresh eyes.
Who do you mean by “us”? I assume you are ‘pro-choice’… if so, want to assume you also include procreation as a valid choice… if a family can afford that, given their resources, should the government impose their restrictions to impede that?
Let’s see… Ron’s (and others?) see the CASP as a “growth”, loss of prime ag land, open space etc. issues.
I’d say that is leaning heavily on the side of “off-topic”… given proclivities, biases (“inherent” or otherwise), I understand the tendencies…
Rest assured Ron, wherever you live, it was a loss for ag land and open space when it was built… when you came here, that was an arguable increase in population… if you procreated since then, even more so… try not to be so pious… you sure sound like an “I’m here, let’s pull up the draw-bridge” type…
I’m confused by this. CASP is simply a plan for the downtown. Some people believe we need more density downtown and in the core because we have foreclosed growth for the most part on the periphery.
You’re confused by me pointing out that Ron’s thing on growth, loss of prime ag, open space is off-topic on the CASP? Ah I see Rod Serling now, assuring me that I’ve just entered the ‘Twilight Zone’…
Howard:
As usual, you go after me (instead of the person who initiated that thread, by stating that there is “no connection” between residential development and population). (A ridiculous argument, but apparently not for you.)
I then pointed out that other (perhaps even all) communities have zoning restrictions, which in fact limit the amount of development (and growth). (And, that includes restrictions on density.)
“For your consideration…”
“For your consideration”, as well. (Whatever your quote above means, to begin with.)
With so much of our zoning being focused on protecting downtown property owners from competition (including significant restrictions on businesses outside of the core) we have created a situation where the health of the City is almost entirely dependent upon the health and vitality of the core business district. That means that the CASP is an important plan for the entire City, not just the downtown.
Who will be the strongest upgrowth candidates for Council?
They’ll announce on Oct 31… there are four of them… I promised to keep my sources anonymous…
Todd: I think (some) of the current batch already meets that criteria. (However, I believe some of them aren’t running again.)
Note that I haven’t said (at any point) that there aren’t opportunities for redevelopment, downtown. Regardless, I’m just one person, sharing my thoughts.
Nice “back-pedal”… truly… g’nite…
No back-pedal at all. Again, look at how the thread started, and my responses.
Why do you continue to inject yourself into unnecessary arguments? Even those who might disagree with me even more strongly than you don’t repeatedly make snide and meaningless remarks. (Actually, you do this with other “selected” targets, as well. For no reason that I can see.)
Seriously, I’d suggest looking inward, regarding the reason you do this, almost every day.
Howard
“if a family can afford that, given their resources, should the government impose their restrictions to impede that?”
My response to this is probably more complex than you may be expecting.
1. I am very much prochoice, but I am also pro responsible choice.
2. “If a family can afford that” is fraught with interpretation. In my opinion, a family can have as many children as they can afford without interfering with the rights of others to a reasonable life style. Let’s take the example of a farm family. Fine to have as many children as they can feed from their legitimate earnings. Not fine to have more if they need the subsistence labor of slaves or indentured servants in order to make ends meet for their family. I guess that the modern example of this would be Walmart putting up signs in store asking higher paid employees to donate food for other employees that need it. To me, it is immoral for some to have billions, while others working for them do not have even food and housing security.
3. With regard to government “imposition”, again room for interpretation. I do not believe in “imposition” as in the previous one child family policy of China. However, I do see benefits to government providing incentives for a given outcome. One example I saw on a medical outreach trip was in Honduras. At the time, about 5 years ago, Honduras had an overwhelming problem of economic orphans. They decided not to force their people to delay child birth and limit the size of family’s but rather to make it free and easy to choose not to conceive. They offered free IUDS of 10 year duration, placed at both urban and rural clinics , removable on request to any woman of reproductive age. Birth control pills were also a choice at a nominal fee. Use of the IUD was highly popular and during the one week I was there, I met only two women who were no contracting appropriately to meet their stated goals. Interestingly enough, no one seemed to find the idea of not just accepting “God’s plan” for their family unusual or morally wrong. For perspective in my Davis clinic I would typically meet 4-5 women daily who were not adequately contracepting to meet their stated goal.
My response to your response, will probably be “more complex than you may be expecting.”
I agree that is true, but we may disagree on the term “responsible”.
So, if having children who will grow up and drive on city streets, drink City water, needing housing to live in when they become adults, etc. causes impacts on Davis residents, or State, Nation, world would that cause an interference? If not, we’re in agreement… we may also disagree on the terms ‘rights’, and ‘reasonable’.
I have no problem with education on/use of contraceptives… but,
in my view, was gratuitous (if not condescending), but fully expected… if you believed in God, which you have repeatedly said you do not, would it not be equally likely that “God’s plan” for any individual, is to be responsible for the time/manner for both contraception and procreation? I believe that to be true.
Howard
“Rest assured Ron, wherever you live, it was a loss for ag land and open space when it was built… when you came here, that was an arguable increase in population”
I see this as a two edged sword argument. Sure one can make the “draw bridge ” argument as you went on to do. But there is another way to look at this. Lets suppose a community made a “mistake” by allowing almost all of its agricultural land to be paved over. Does that mean that it is obliged to make the same mistake again and let the last few parcels of land be paved over ? My experience having watched this happen in Orange County is “no”. One does not have to repeat the same destructive process just because it occurred in the past. As a matter of fact, maybe it would even be better to learn from it before one paves or sprawls over almost everything.
Your questions, as worded, are sophistry, as I am sure you know.
Let me know when you want a real conversation…
Nice that you want to ‘defend’ Ron’s posts… very neighborly…