The city this week announced that they were extending the application period for the Core Area Advisory Committee (CAAC) until September 25. Some concerns have been emerging lately and I want to raise one myself about the 19-member group, of which 15 are voting members.
Back on August 30, the council agreed to add three additional voting members, each a representative from three (Old North, Old East, and Rice Lane) of the four neighborhood associations surrounding the core area.
On the surface that may seem to make sense – after all, the close proximity of those neighborhoods to the core area would tend to produce some unique impacts that the CAAC may want to address.
But, in another way, the move does not make a whole lot of sense. Here we have a council, and indeed statewide, push back on the notion of “NIMBY” or less pejoratively proximity-based impacts, and then we turn around and give voting power to some neighborhoods but not others based simply on the proximity to the core area.
Is this not the wrong message to send?
Can we not argue, as I have at other times, that the whole community has equal stakes in the future of the downtown and that, by giving voting power to some but not others, we are tacitly prioritizing proximity-based issues over other issues?
Some have argued that those who are closest (in geography) to proposed changes are generally those most impacted by it.
But is that really true? And no one is saying that those voices should not be heard, measured, and included in the discussion, but reserving three of the 15 voting seats at the table seems to give them disproportionate weight.
I would argue that business owners have at least as much stake, and yet the Davis Downtown and Chamber each have one voting member, out-numbered by the neighbors who have three.
And while immediate neighbors certainly make a list of those most impacted, I would argue that the Core Area Specific Plan (CASP) impacts everyone in town. A vital and thriving downtown is in everyone’s interest.
People specifically impacted by the future of the downtown include: Downtown business owners, but also non-downtown business owners. They include patrons of the downtown – anyone who utilizes the amenities and businesses. They include those who are civic-minded people, concerned about things like economic development, the tax base, the economy, jobs, etc.
Heck, if we want to get really parochial, how about parents of small kids? How many times have my kids almost had an accident because of the lack of available public restrooms in the downtown?
What are the impacts on neighbors – issues like noise, traffic, and density and building heights come to mind.
But here is an interesting point – a lot of people, who live in the core area, walk or bike to the downtown rather than drive. That means that for them issues like traffic and parking may ironically be less impacted than for people who live a few miles from the downtown and have to drive into the core area and find parking in the downtown.
As a business owner who goes into the downtown on a daily basis, I am probably much more impacted by a lot of the issues that will come before the CAAC than the neighbors are. Those who operate retail are impacted, probably even more so than someone like me who operates a non-profit.
Again, not arguing that the adjacent neighborhoods are not impacted by decisions made by the CAAC, but part of my problem is that the council simply made a decision at the meeting on August 30 to add voting members based on public comment.
Rhonda Reed, representing Old East Davis Neighborhood Association (as well as standing in for Old North as their representative had a conflict), told the council, “We feel our neighborhoods do merit having a seat at the table. Each neighborhood is different, has different issues and we represent three-quarters of the planning area that’s under focus for the change in the general plan update.”
Alan Miller, who also lives in Old East Davis, said that “one way or another the neighborhoods will be heard and it’s a matter do you want, after the fact, banging on the door or would you rather we were just there, represented as part of the committee of something that very much affects our interests.”
But should they be given 20 percent (three of the 15) voting seats? Did anyone calculate how much interest they should have? Did anyone consider that the Davis Downtown and Davis Chamber, which represent business interests, only get two of the seats, whereas the neighbors now get three?
Did anyone consider that other neighborhoods which were less vocal and less organized may be impacted as well?
These are all considerations that I think did not get included in the discussion.
It is obvious that there is a driver of this discussion and that driver is Trackside. Trackside was the catalyst to activate the Old East Neighborhood Association. It got the residents there active and vigilant. And that is not a bad thing, by the way.
As we have argued, in a way we should probably resolve the CASP before making a determination of Trackside – that won’t happen and that is unfortunate. But building heights in the core area only peripherally impact the neighbors.
My view of the future of the Davis Downtown is the need for heavy redevelopment – converting the single-story and two-story blocks into multi-story vertical mixed use. You can have a ground floor of retail, one or two floors of office space, and two to three floors of residential. You would go up to five or six stories in the core, you put parking in the interior of the blocks.
Such a set up would have profound impacts on retail, on office space, and on the availability of residential in the core area. Those are things that might impact the adjacent neighborhoods, but they really impact all of us and it is not clear that the adjacent neighborhoods have more of a stake in that future than the rest of us. In fact, they may have less of a stake than many others – those with businesses, those who are driving patrons to the downtown, and those who need office space or places to live.
In my view, while I do not wish to exclude the voice of the neighbors, reserving 20 percent of the voting seats for them sends the wrong message at the wrong time and I think creates a disparity of influence that could very well harm this process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, I agree with your article. The downtown belongs to us all that live in Davis, we all should have an equal say.
I don’t think our city council thought this out very well when they gave only 3 neighborhoods voting rights in a knee jerk reaction.
How big do you think this committee should be? I think it’s already too big to be able to function very well.
Two thoughts… Commissioner Robertson “stuck the landing” when he opined that the group was very large, and would need a strong leader for it to have much of a chance for success.
Second is, since the 3 voting ‘spots’ for the neighborhood groups are pretty much a fait accompli and further expanding the formal group, voting or not, compounds the first problem, I suggest there be a “mitigation”… that would be who is selected to fill the seats at the table.
I strongly hope all will be chosen, not for the “advocacy” of their particular interests or those of ‘their constituency’, but for their ‘backgrounds and knowledge’, tempered by their genuine interest in doing the best for the community, mindful of all the benefits and impacts/tradeoffs which may apply for any individual/business.
The last thing the group needs is out-spoken advocates for any one approach/concern.
It’ll never happen (politics too strong), but that’s what I believe should happen. And, in any event, it will take strong/thoughtful leadership, and a good dose of ‘facilitation’, if the effort is to succeed.
The community committee responsible for the 1961 CASP consisted of 60 individuals from throughout the community. This group was broken into six working subcommittees that were responsible for different aspects of the plan. The result of their combined work was a revolutionary forward-looking plan that would have set Davis up for a strong fiscal future had it been fully implemented.
The current approach is in my opinion designed to maintain the status quo by limiting the input from the community to the few voices selected for this committee. With the structural limitations put in place by the Staff and CC, there is little opportunity for much more than ‘maintaining the course,’ a course that has largely failed to support the economic vitality of the City. To repeat one aspect from my piece yesterday, 55% of the City’s residents are renters and it is easy to imagine that renters (both residential and commercial) will have different views on many issues downtown than will the property owners. Will the committee makeup reflect those differences in any meaningful way, or will the one student member be deemed sufficient?
This sounds like a really good approach. I suggest the council consider starting over and doing something like this.
Planning Commissioner Rutherford made some very cogent comments on this process during their Sep 13th meeting. While the entire discussion may be informative to anyone who is interested, I believe his comments starting at about 35-minute point of the video are particularly valuable.
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/city-council/city-council-meetings/meeting-videos
Scroll down to the Planning Commission videos and the Sept 13th meeting.
Since I wasn’t here in ’61, were those 60 people fully entrenched in their views, representing “niches”, or was it more like a “charette” with folk doing the ‘visioning’ thing? Or something in between…? Working by consensus, or “votes”?
You may be on to something, as a better model for proceeding… just don’t know enough about it…
Maybe the ’61 model is one that should be pursued…
Keith
My kids as well as kids from all over town used the North Davis, South Davis, East Davis and central Davis soccer fields. We used all every year. Does that mean that what happened on those fields therefore had equal impact on us and that we should have had the same say as those in the adjacent homes. I would say no. You might disagree, but if so I would like to know why you think this is any different from the postulate that all should have an equal say in downtown as those who live in and adjacent to it.
I would argue the CAAC just became more important with the new legislation passed yesterday
David,
3 out of 15 is not a majority of the voting power, so allowing 3 adjacent neighborhood reps is not an issue. In fact, I think anything less then 3 reps of adjacent neighborhood representation on the CAAC would be unfair since they deserve to be allowed to give input on this very important committee and the planning decisions than come from it. The adjacent neighbors are impacted the most and certainly should be able to weigh in.
But it’s disproportionate impact. As I pointed out the adjacent neighborhood is not necessarily impacted the most.
David,
It’s not disproportionate at all. The adjacent neighborhoods are impacted the most directly and certainly deserve to be on this committee. Again, only 3 out of 15 is not a majority, and it will take majority votes for things to pass.
Yes, but three votes (20%) can easily sway a vote one way or another. Still, why are all the other neighborhoods in Davis not being offered a seat at the table? It’s downtown to us all.
The neighborhood defined as a physical entity and impacted as one perhaps. But as a collection of individuals I’m not sure that’s really true I spend 12 hours a day in the downtown working. Why would you say that someone who spends their time at home asleep for the post part is more impacted than me?
When Tres Hermanos ran their 11-2pm subwoofers Thurs-Saturday for, what, 7-8 years, it was difficult to get to sleep until the music ended. While you were home asleep, I was waiting for the music to end. I can’t think of an impact greater than not being able to get to sleep. Your comment is offensive in its asininity.
That downtown policy’s impact was ignored by the City for years, and took a murder to correct.
Yes, they ARE impacted the most. Especially for proposed changes IN their neighborhood (e.g., Trackside). But, even for proposed changes in nearby areas – as noise, traffic, and parking issues (from downtown) can spread to their neighborhoods.
I completely disagree that they are impacted the most. I would argue downtown employees, land and business owners and patrons are far more impacted. I lay out the case above and you and Eileen have countered through argument by assertion
David: I was primarily “comparing” them to those who live in more outlying neighborhoods.
Wasn’t “noise” an issue (at KetMoRee?), for example?
A home is entirely different than a business.
Businesses don’t inherently need to be a bad source of noise… you’ve never lived in a residential neighborhood where there were obnoxious noises coming from nearby residential properties?
Ron: Some impacts are location specific, most are not. That’s the point you continue to miss here because you are thinking only in terms of geographic impacts.
On this point, we clearly disagree. Those who live downtown and in the adjacent neighborhoods clearly have a greater impact even than those who work downtown. The impact on us is not just when we choose to be out and about downtown or for the eight or so hours of our employment, but rather 24/7.
If you have a business downtown you may be affected by the homeless, or the rowdy students, or people over parking during your hours of business. But you then go home. Those of us who live downtown or are adjacent experience this 24/7. Now one can argue that I chose this and that would be true. But it does not mean that I do not experience greater impact.
David,
Also, since the “poll” on the UCD housing at the top of the page from last week is meaningless since anyone could vote multiple times, so why is it still posted? Once people understood how it was not a honest poll and its misrepresentation, many post-ers objected to it and asked for it to be taken down. Yet it is still up and amounts to false advertising.
Why hasn’t the Vanguard not taken down this “fake news” poll?
Because I needed to leave it up to fix it
David,
There is no “fixing” this poll. In fact that terminology makes it all the more egregious that it is still up and potentially falsely influencing people with its misrepresenting information.
This has gone on for over a week and frankly it looks like there is an agenda here at this point by the Vanguard to try to advertise this as valid information, which it certainly is not.
Please take the poll down with its “fake news” false information.
[moderator] The poll is off topic. Please contact David directly with concerns like this. Once I know he’s seen this, I’ll be pulling these comments.
Eileen (sorry Don) – not trying to fix this poll, trying to make so people can only vote once
THK gawd!
Never gonna work. Strong leaders do not exist in an “everyone gets a trophy.” world.
Neighbors are already entrenched to fight for their cadre. You can’t put up a bird bath in Davisville without some NAG getting involved.
Which 4 are not voting members?
Those serving on City commissions that will later vote on the final product.
If 3 of the members come from the neighboring neighborhoods, does this mean that no other members can live in these areas? If so, does this mean that they represent all those in these neighborhoods with the responsibility to speak for these homeowners and not necessarily their own views or concerns? If so, how is this person chosen – by neighborhood vote, selected by the neighborhood association? Can other neighborhoods demand similar representation? How about Olive Drive? The homes along A street, University and First Street? How about residents in the downtown area itself?
Not in the CASP study area.
That would make sense, but they are not currently organized. Hopefully, as the population of downtown increases manyfold, this will change.
They are included. They are one of the Traditional Neighborhoods that are physically part of the planning area of the CASP.
I’m talking about voting representation.
Are you implying I’m not, cuz I am.
What about the other questions? Will there only be one person allowed from these neighborhoods to participate? How will these people be selected – by the neighborhood or the Council?
Each council member will appoint two people, completely at their decretion.
Sharla
I can only answer for my understanding of the OEDNA process. We used a democratic process in the formation of OEDNA starting with a very large preliminary meeting which was outreached to all of our neighbors on social media and by word of mouth ( including door to door) as this was a re activation of the previously existing group. At that meeting we elected officers. All meetings are announced and any member of the community, including students, are welcome to attend. Our subsequent actions including proposed committee member have been chosen by a consensus building process involving all of the active members of our group. We discuss until everyone is “happy” or at least accepting of the decision.
We are aware that this is not all inclusive as there are members who have not come to all or any meetings. On my street, I have handled this by going directly to people’s houses and soliciting their opinion ( Spanish and English as that is all I speak conversationally). People in the neighborhood are free to apply as individuals, or to participate through our group process.
I think that the covers all of your questions from my perspective.
The City has implied that the planning area for the CASP goes from 1st to 8th and A to L Streets. That means the physical area to be studied includes land use in the three Traditional Neighborhoods. Anyone who thinks that a study that includes these neighborhoods won’t have more of an effect on these neighborhoods is just being asinine.
Missed that memo… thank you for the clarification… the ‘old’ CASP boundaries were First to Fifth, A to UPRR, except for a ‘finger’, that extended from Fifth to Sweetbriar, on either side of G.
Scope creep? Might well be appropriate, but missed that nuance…
Was wondering why Old North or Old East were offered seats at the table, other than adjacency to what I knew as the CASP boundaries… truly, thanks for the clarification…
Perhaps interesting, as that means City offices, Senior Center, King HS, and DJUSD offices are now in “the mix”.
That also means, everything should be “in play” within the new boundaries…
What? No. You’re both wrong. The Core Area, since 1992, has been the area HP describes plus the area east of the tracks to the alley. There’s no need to argue about it, the CASP is unambiguous. The only Traditional Neighborhood within the Core Area is the University, Rice Land Neighborhood.
Alan may be confused because the Downtown & Traditional Design Guidelines cover both the Core Area and Old East and Old North Traditional Neighborhoods.
By by the way, the only area difference between the 1961 Core Area Plan and the 1992 Core Area Specific Plan is the addition of the area between the tracks and the alley as well as the Sweetbriar area.
Hi Howard
“as that means City offices, Senior Center, King HS, and DJUSD offices are now in “the mix”.
True and a point that I had missed. Will have to think about the implication of that.
Ok, I want a seat at the table just to make sure they don’t try to extend the planning area any further down 5th Street. The last thing I want is to be subjected to any of this stuff.
Looks like you’re good, but feel free to apply! You are as proximate to L as most in Old East are to Trackside… go for it…
I don’t qualify. I am not a resident of Davis. I own property and a business here, but not a residence.
Don, residency is not a requirement for CAAC participation.
Nor, apparently, is it a requirement for moderating the local blog.
Hi Don,
“The last thing I want is to be subjected to any of this stuff.”
I think that you are expressing the opinion of many. Some of those who share your opinion clearly want a say despite not being or wanting to be “subjected”. Some seem to feel that since they are not as impacted, they simply do not want to be involved. I see both attitudes frequently at Farmer’s Market. Tabling is a real eye opener if you are willing to listen as well as to talk.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the CAAC. It is an advisory body. It is not a decision making body. Those that are trying to stack the CAAC are acting in bad faith to no end. They are working to achieve predetermined outcomes rather than researching best practices and soliciting input from the entire community to provide the best possible advice to the City Council who will be finalizing the plan. Their effort is an exercise in futility. That is not how these things work. Highly regarded experts and highly skilled facilitators will be guiding the CAAC throughout. This is not their first rodeo.
Another aspect of this enterprise that many appear to ignore is the purpose of the Core Area. The General Plan and the Core Area Specific Plan make it very clear that the Core Area is the “City’s social, cultural, retail center, and professional and administrative office district”. That has been the case for decades. Why anyone would think the adjacent neighborhoods are entitled to some kind of super voting right is akin to Trump thinking Mexico is going to pay for his wall. It’s not going to happen. The downtown is the community’s shared space, not the adjacent neighborhood’s front porch.
Hi Michael,
You almost had me until you undermined your own argument. First you pointed out correctly that this is an advisory, not a decision making body. Secondly, I do not know anyone who is trying to “stack” the committee. There is no guarantee that the adjacent neighborhoods are all going to see every issue the same way anymore than that every business person will fall into lock step. But the true undercutting came with this statement:
“Why anyone would think the adjacent neighborhoods are entitled to some kind of super voting right.”
3 of 15 with no guarantee of unanimity of thought is hardly a “super voting right” and we are not voting on policy, but rather on recommendation as you first pointed out.
Ask all the other neighborhoods in Davis that don’t get a vote if they think some neighborhoods do have a “super voting right”.
No Tia, my statements here are consistent, coherent and sound. You falsely attribute statements to me then proceed to say I have undermined my own argument.
Brett Lee stated unequivocally at the last DV conclave that there were efforts to stack the committee. He did not provide specifics. Similar comments were made at the CC meeting. Your argument is with Brett Lee and city staff, not with me.
Seriously, the plan is have the CAAC’s recommendation decided by a majority, and possibly a marginal one? That’s a recipe for fundamental dissatisfaction. A relatively small body like this – meeting and getting to know each other well – should be required to create consensus. We’re up to the task.
A few months ago, Rochelle said she believed the CASP study should go 1st to 8th and A to L Streets. I don’t remember the date, but I did go back and watch the video to make sure I heard right, and several others confirmed it. As well, the RFP for the consultant to do the study included the boundaries of the Core Area study to go as far as 8th and L Streets. This puts five neighborhoods in the area to be studied, and those that are organized asked for a seat at the table.
Are y’all` starting to understand this now? The traditional neighborhoods aren’t asking for this because of Trackside, and they’re not asking for this because of proximity to the core, the traditional neighborhoods are asking for this because they have been placed in the study area for the Core plan. The development extremists are trying to paint this as some sort of power play over Downtown. The traditional neighborhoods are in favor of a vibrant downtown; as well, the traditional neighborhoods are in favor of downtown growing upward — that is part of the Design Guidelines.
This focusing on one or two people and trying to paint a broad brush is only divisive. As well, this assumption that the traditional neighborhood reps are going to go against the interests of downtown is inane, and goes against all past experience. Neighborhood reps are perfectly capable of functioning on committee. There should also be no assumption that all the neighborhoods are going to vote as one block — each has different interests and the neighborhoods don’t always see eye-to-eye.
The neighborhoods are asking for representation due to inclusion in the study area.
So chill the F— out everyone.
— Jason Taormino, Chair, Davis Chamber of Commerce
https://davisvanguard.org/2017/08/letter-thoughts-parking-davis-downtown/
Well, that’s, like, his opinion, man
Todd
We are definitely up to the task. The very existence in town of a group, in this case OEDNA, that is composed of a very diverse group of people who have arrived at a consensus driven decision making process demonstrates that this can be done.
Frankly, as someone whose home will not be directly impacted by Trackside, the establishment and fostering of consensus decision making is one of the main reasons I have remained part of the group. Many who know me are aware that consensus decision making is a process of major importance to me as is collaborative rather than competitive processes.
I agree, how about we get the consensus of the whole city with every community having an equal say?
North Davis is a historically marginalized community in Davis politics. We demand complete control of the process to amend years of neglect.
Hi Jim,
I recommend that you de marginalize yourself by the same route that other organized communities have done so. Organize and participate.