The question that will go before council next week on Trackside is going to be a tough one – how big is too big? This was an easy problem at one point. Everyone could basically agree that a six-story building at Trackside was too large and a lot of people felt that a two-story building was too small.
But now that the developers have come down to four stories and the neighbors have agreed to support three stories, the issue becomes more dicey.
Alan Miller, a board member for the Old East Neighborhood Association, posting on the Vanguard stated, “Were Old East a no-growth group trying to stop Trackside, I’d be calling for our own heads. But that’s not the case. The Old East Neighbors want a large, mixed-use building there. We all agree that the one on the table is too large for its location, and are only asking that the Trackside Partners follow the same rules as those who invested in the neighborhood did.”
On the other hand, writing in the local paper, Nicole Bourne, Dan Wolk and Dan Fuchs write, “We support the Trackside Center proposal because we think it strikes the proper balance between neighborhood interests and local and regional development goals.”
Here they argue: “While a smaller project will comply with the decade-old General Plan guidelines, the slightly larger project now before the City Council will better harmonize those guidelines 
with the land-use policies forged by generations of Davisites that guide us today. Those policies (shown in the table below), including Davis’ commitment to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, provide the blueprint to achieve the goals that determine our land-use decisions.”
This is a tough call for me. Part of why I believe that the neighbors have focused on the wrong aspect of the project to attack is that the issue of “too large” is in the eye of the beholder. Those who believe that if the community is not going to grow out, it must become more dense and therefore grow higher, are probably more likely to favor a four-story Trackside.
And despite all of the arguments to the contrary, it is a subjective assessment.
In order to make their case more objective, the neighbors have tried to bolster their case by arguing that the project does not meet design guidelines.
There are shortcomings there as well. As we have often pointed out, the design guidelines are probably outdated as it is. We have made the point repeatedly that the downtown needs to go up – way up, like six stories up.
And if you go from a six-story downtown to a one- to two-story neighborhood, you are more realistically looking at three to four stories in the transition area. And three to four stories splits the difference at this point between the neighbors and the developers.
The neighbors cite Planning Commissioner David Robertson, who on August 23 asked at the Trackside Center hearing, “If we’re not going to enforce the Design Guidelines, then why do we have them?”
Well, for one thing, guidelines are simply that – they help guide our thinking, but they are not hard and fast rules that must be adhered to at all costs and under all conditions.
As one of our posters noted, if the project is not substantially consistent with the guidelines, there are three choices: enforce the guidelines, amend the guidelines with due process, or “86” the guidelines.
While that is true, the reality is that the council can, with three votes, vote to amend the guidelines for the project.
I find it interesting that, the week before the council is set to act on Trackside, the city council will be voting to fill the Core Area Specific Plan Advisory Committee. I have suggested a number of times that the council should first settle the issue of the Core Area Specific Plan, which is badly outdated, before making determinations on Trackside.
As I have stated before, I would take a different approach, as I don’t believe that the council is likely to hold the design guidelines as intractable barriers nearly as much as the neighbors are. To me, the biggest problem with Trackside is that it is a big building that at best will create 27 units of housing – housing for non-critical needs and uses.
The neighbors are willing to go to 23 units with their three-story configuration. The difference between the two frankly seems negligible in terms of our overall housing needs, particularly when the type of housing provided does not seem to address any of the real core needs – student housing or family housing.
If that is the case, we are forced to ask if this whole project is really the best use of time, space and energy in this community. It seems like a lot of time to spend on something that is really not going to solve any of our real housing problems.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
That is a truly disturbing comment.
Except as specified, by existing Code, the “community” has no damn rights to decide “best use of time, space, and energy.”
Now if the project requires changes to the Code, the “community” has the right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’… ONLY!
But “the community” has little right to dictate a third option. Lest some of the latter part of the Fifth Amendment kick in, if the “community” attempts to.
A reason to proceed very carefully, regarding zoning changes. Zoning is a type of “restriction”, regarding land usage.
In general, when restrictions are “added”, it’s often viewed as a “taking” from property owners. However, when restrictions are “loosened”, it is not viewed as a “giving” to property owners. (Even though that’s often exactly what it accomplishes, in terms of increased value of the land.) In general, I’m defining “loosened” as changing the zoning (e.g., to allow increased density, changing from commercial to residential, changing from farmland to residential, etc.). Other “loosening” actions might include eliminating or reducing parking requirements, reducing Affordable housing requirements, “green” requirements, etc.
“While that is true, the reality is that the council can, with three votes, vote to amend the guidelines for the project.”
A currently sitting council member and I discussed the issue of three votes being able to “amend” or “ignore” depending on your point of view, the zoning and design guidelines. This CC member seemed to feel that this approach is inevitable. I disagree. There are a group of 5 citizens, those elected to be on the City Council who have the ability to eschew this potentially biased approach. I would recommend the following approach. The City Council members agree as individuals to the following means of ensuring that all development applications, large or small are adherent to the same set of rules.
1. Message from CC to neighborhoods – if a project is within current ( regardless of whether or not “outdated”) guidelines, the project will be approved if passes all relevant commissions and the CC if applicable. So no frivolous delay tactics.
2. Message from CC to neighborhoods – if you are presenting a project to the city, it must meet one of two criteria. 1. It must be within the current zoning and design guidelines or 2. For projects outside the guidelines you must have collaborated with the adjacent neighbors/ neighborhood association either independently or through facilitated conversation and arrived at an agreed upon design. Projects that do not meet either of these two requirements will simply not be considered.
I do not propose this specifically with regard to the Trackside project, but rather as a means of ensuring that everyone who proposes a renovation, building or development project to the city will have an even playing field and be assured that the same set of criteria applies to them as to every other applicant regardless of their stated purpose, financial, political or social connections within the city.
too big also has scientific basis not just what some paid off council and chamber folks may ponder and also local folks who run media outfits in town, anyone whose livelihood depends on construction, growth or donations, should not be allowed to give their commentary as obviously they have a horse in the race…. how is this in any way objective David?
also I hope that the folks with the bean counting ability AND the measuring tapes are not missing anything.. we learned the hard way with some of these same developers.. . when the single story was as tall as a triple story as then the agreement was not specifying meters….
due to my long history since 1970 in that town and with a lot of the same folks, guess why, I advocate do not ever believe a word..
A more recent example was with the Cannery.. what happened to that money?
A typical bait and switch, and why weren ‘t the folks who promised, then renegged, and the council who were in collusion by that point, why were they allowed to do that and get away with stealing funds from the citizens.
That’s an incorrect statement. On the basic mass, using the current balance of commercial and residential proposed, both proposals have identical commercial, taking up the entire first floor. The Trackside Partners LLC proposal above that is for 27 units, whereas the neighborhood “proposal” — actually a building meeting zoning and Design Guidelines — is approximately 15 units.
There is room to compromise between those numbers — the number 21 comes to mind. However, recent attempts to find a mutually agreeable general mass and design has once again failed.