This is the fourth of the Vanguard’s series of 11 questions. Every Monday until the week before election, we’ll have a new question and answers. Answers are limited to 250 words.
Question 4: The city of Davis will be embarking on its update of the core area specific plan. Describe your vision for the Davis Downtown – be sure to discuss issues like housing in the downtown, retail business, parking, transportation and other issues.
Gloria Partida
My vision for the Davis downtown area includes dense mixed use sustainable development with affordable units, frequent public transportation service via buses and if feasible city sponsored ride share, subsidized employee parking in parking structures to free up on street parking.
To further alleviate parking we need at least one new parking structure. Expanded bike share with standard bicycles as well as electric assist bikes would be helpful for people wanting to park farther from downtown but who don’t want to ride from the edges of Davis.
Major grocery chains could set up satellite grocery stores for walkable grocery shopping. Aggressive solicitation of businesses as well as a study to identify perceived barriers to opening a business in Davis and finding ways to compete with e-commerce.
I would like to see more support of minority and women owned businesses and collaboration with UC Davis Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. I would also like to see more areas to linger
and enjoy conversations or music. It is important to support art programs downtown to help draw patrons and build community.
A diverse number of eateries and shops to cater to all demographics. Shuttle service from UCD to downtown businesses during lunch and from restaurants to events at the Mondavi center on evenings when events are taking place.
Most importantly, the visioning exercises we are participating in must find ways to make visions realities. We must not recycle old ideas and shelve all the work done by the community until the next visioning session.
Dan Carson
Davis Downtown must become a vibrant and livable economic engine for a city in dire need of tax revenues to pay our bills.
I would explore the opportunities to develop new high-density housing for our workforce, UC Davis faculty and students, and seniors to breathe new life into our core area, create an exciting vibe, and generate new customers for downtown businesses. This could bolster sales and property tax revenues to pay for city services we all enjoy.
Our ongoing downtown planning process provides a chance to use zoning laws and design rules to entice new investors to expand successful existing businesses. We should strive to attract a broader array of entertainment, restaurant, and retail choices and create space to expand our innovation economy. I would also examine the feasibility of using city land and buildings to directly generate new activity downtown – and lease revenues to support city services:
Relocation of the city’s Fifth Street corporation yard to the city’s edge could allow new housing, commercial, or mixed-use development near downtown and more compatible with the adjoining East Davis neighborhood.
The Amtrak station parking lot could become a site for high-rise housing for rail commuters to Sacramento and the Bay Area choosing to live car-free. Such a project could also include additional parking to support downtown businesses.
A farm-to-fork restaurant could be integrated with the bicycling museum at Third and B, encouraging out-of-town visitors to the Farmer’s Market to stay in town longer and spend more money in downtown Davis.
Luis Rios
The Davis downtown area should be a vibrant place for shopping, housing and community events for all residents. Downtown spaces should be mixed-use; where we, as Davisites can have an open space for public art, cultural events, family-friendly entertainment, retail business, especially for students, youth and children.
The next ten years need to be foundational for community-oriented initiatives to foster community and establish a historic small-town character conducive to local business development, walkable streets and building on existing infrastructure. A development for bike lanes and pedestrian areas must be considered.
A portion of E Street, between 2nd Street and 3rd Street can be closed off for the expansion of E Street Plaza. I will concentrate my efforts to highlight the E Street Plaza. The E Street Plaza is the heart of Davis and it should be expanded to include lawn, trees, more benches and more space for kid-friendly events, and activities for all residents.
In addition, the old City Hall building, and the Varsity Theatre can be used as anchors as we plan for smart development and bringing in new businesses and supporting our existing small business owners.
The downtown area needs a pharmacy, a supermarket, an urgent care center, a public library, and potentially a UC Davis satellite center for students to study and hold events. Many longtime and new residents are ready to contribute to the local economy with new leadership and direction. I will lead this effort when I’m elected.
Linda Deos
Downtown is the most financially productive area of the city, averaging $3.8M of value per acre. To build upon this let’s have additional investments which encourage people to come and linger; e.g. improved alleyways and broader sidewalks available parking, and additional housing.
We have 3100 parking spaces downtown, 900 of which are privately controlled. Finding parking is challenging during the lunch hour and evenings – and much of the traffic congestion is created by people looking for parking. Therefore, I support any and all measures that we can implement that will help to manage this situation. Those measures include, smart metering which allows you to add time remotely and to alter pricing depending on demand, partnering with private lot owners to allow parking outside of business hours, expanding the X permits for employees, and adding additional parking at the train station.
Creating housing in our downtown core is essential to maintaining its economic vitality. Currently, there are fewer than 1000 people living here and we need to double that number. We can do this by building up and creating spaces for retail, offices and living space and/or developing the approximately 10 acres of land already owned by the City. However, until we revise our zoning standards and guidelines, development of this sort will continue to be hampered.
Larry Guenther
I am a member of the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee and this answer reflects my personal views.
- I believe that whatever height the community decides the central downtown should be, the height should decrease in a harmonious way and transition to the surrounding traditional residential neighborhoods.
- More residential. Remove the barriers to mixed-use building. The benefits of people living downtown are legion: reduced traffic and congestion, increased viability of a variety of businesses other than restaurants, etc.
- Improve parking. Re-visit the X permit. The current construction of a parking lot on the south side of the tracks will help, but we need to move more employee parking out of central downtown. Paid parking will help the parking and congestion issues. Working with the banks to share parking should be a priority.
- Safer and more amenable to bikes and pedestrians. Making downtown safer for bicycles is a difficult issue and must be addressed with robust involvement of the cycling community and BTTSSC. Moving forward with a pedestrian-only section of E St. between 2nd and 3rd streets and removing parking from the E Street plaza would make the downtown core an even greater space than it is now.
- Fill the store fronts. Businesses that provide goods and services are critical to a resilient downtown economy. The benefit of locally-owned businesses cannot be overstated. The revenue multiplier for a locally-owned business vs. a national chain is huge.
- Homelessness will be addressed in a future question.
Mary Jo Bryan
My vision of Davis Downtown is a vibrant setting that serves Davis residents and UC Davis students, as well as visitors to both UCD and Davis. Downtown should be a place where people come to enjoy themselves. It’s a place where mixed-use residential construction comes into its own. A mix of three- and four-story buildings, stretching down Second Street with ground floor commercial, retail and service establishments and two to three stories of residential above will substantially increase consumer demand in Downtown. An example is the Chen Building at the northeast corner of Second and G Streets.
Second Street would be a promenade that stretches from the Amtrak Station to the University. The Amtrak station becomes the hub of commuter transportation to and from both the Bay Area and Sacramento.
The university would harmonize with the Downtown, and could carry a theme of agriculture and food culture from end-to-end with kiosks, trees, outside dining, a small playground, and more.
That is my vision for the future of Davis. Joining with the citizen-based Downtown Davis Plan Advisory Committee, and working with citizens on improving our Downtown, a vision like that could become a reality.
As citizens, we have a chance to join and participate in its development. The Advisory Committee and consultants have scheduled a four-day Participatory Design Workshop, July 24th to 28th at the Davis Community Church. Together all of us, residents, students, property owners, and businesses have an opportunity to be a part of future vision of Davis Downtown.
Mark West
If we want the downtown to remain an economically vibrant town center we will need to plan for its renewal. My vision is an update of the plan put forward by the community with the 1961 Core Area Specific Plan in an effort to imagine a downtown that would support a city of 70,000 people. http://www.davishistorytoday.org/2017/08/the-davis-core-area-plan-of-1961-moment.html
The approach is to replace the numerous one and two-story buildings with private parking lots with high-rise mixed-use developments with retail and commercial on the bottom, and residential above. Parking should be incorporated beneath or behind the new buildings and hidden from the streetscape. With more people living downtown we will see greater support for our core area stores and restaurants which will lead to greater diversity in those offerings and the expansion of the economic vitality of the City.
The status quo is entrenched in this town, however, so if I were a betting man I would expect that after another 57 years the downtown will continue to look much the same as it does today (and as it did in 1961), and residents will still be arguing about a vision for the future. Our community, after all, is great at making plans, but not as successful when it comes to implementing them. That is a characteristic of our community that we will need to change if we want a sustainable future.
Ezra Beeman
My key priorities for the Davis Downtown excluding addressing anti-social behavior are:
- Neighborhood reservation
- Community-led planning
- Progressive, world class leadership in transportation, energy, waste, water, etc.
- Improve business conditions and City revenues
I will focus on the first two in this response due to the 250 word limit. I have attached the other two sections in case they can be accommodated.
Neighborhood Preservation
If we go higher than 3 stories, we may lose our small town feel and the ambiance of our downtown. Many have moved to Davis for its small-town charm.
I would look to accommodate any necessary growth through a more incremental approach, which preserves our neighborhoods, including downtown.
We also need to think very carefully about the impact of more people living downtown on its current focus as our entertainment center. The two concepts could conflict due to noise from the nightlife, etc., which Downtown businesses rely on.
Community Input
I think we need to proactively engage our community and determine what it wants, and then implement it effectively and transparently, so that the City can be held accountable.
Going door to door, many residents worry we may be making downtown too much of a focus, at the expense of the distributed commercial districts around our fringe, which also help reduce congestion and improve quality of life.
The City needs to go out to people to get this kind of input.
Eric Gudz
We need to strive for a work – live – play downtown. There is so much for us to be proud of in our downtown, from the gatherings at E Street Plaza to our vibrant art mosaics to that one-of-a-kind shopping experience we get from our favorite boutiques. While many of our favorite parts of downtown will be here for decades, I believe there’s more we could do to enable our downtown to thrive even more.
The biggest impediment to downtown vibrancy is the strain on that work – live – play balance. We don’t have enough folks living downtown, who could be filling our shops and restaurants with patrons. The parking dilemma is exacerbated by the lack of housing, as the record high number of commuters driving into our community almost all use personal vehicles to get to and from their jobs in Davis. (Whereas if they lived closer to where they worked they would be incentivized to drive less). At least a quarter of our downtown traffic is generated by that scintillating search for parking, and we are at risk of not attaining our long term sustainability goals if we can’t find a way to bring folks closer to where they work and reducing vehicle trips where it makes sense to do so.
As far as the downtown business community that’s feeling the pinch, I think we need to listen more to our business leaders, especially those who are struggling, to better understand their perspective. Their concerns about patronage, parking, and profitability are valid, and any solutions we produce as a community need to be grounded in keeping the patronage of our businesses alive and well.
I agree with Mark West that there is a strong probability that residents will still be arguing about a future vision of the Davis downtown in 57 years, but I disagree that it will continue to look much the same as it does today.
Davis Commons has six vacancies.
The old site of Watermelon music is still vacant.
There are other vacancies downtown as well.
Davis downtown is in decline and has been in decline for the last decade at least. The primary reason is lack of affordable commercial space in town relative to the number of paying customers. Escalating property costs combined with demographic changes that included more fixed-income seniors and fixed non-income students… together it is a recipe for downtown decline.
Davis residents fool themselves that Davis is NOT in decline… but only from the facade of vitality brought to us by the mass of UCD-related humanity that scurries about. Unfortunately behind that fake news are significant problems that we will keep ignoring as the inconvenient truth challenging our strongly held beliefs that we have the power to resist change without consequence.
Larry: “Working with the banks to share parking should be a priority.”
They’ll say no. Those spots are for their customers. Why would they share private parking spaces?
Luis: “A portion of E Street, between 2nd Street and 3rd Street can be closed off for the expansion of E Street Plaza. I will concentrate my efforts to highlight the E Street Plaza. The E Street Plaza is the heart of Davis and it should be expanded to include lawn, trees, more benches and more space for kid-friendly events, and activities for all residents.”
Please, please, can this idea just die a quiet, natural death? This sort of proposal, which surfaces regularly, is an existential threat to any existing business. Why do we wish to have a plaza downtown when there is a huge lawn and park and Farmers’ Market just a few blocks away?
Dan: “Relocation of the city’s Fifth Street corporation yard to the city’s edge could allow new housing, commercial, or mixed-use development near downtown and more compatible with the adjoining East Davis neighborhood.”
Brilliant. Actually part of the economic development strategy the task force developed a few years ago. I consider the likelihood of it actually happening to be almost nil, and personally I would probably not be thrilled about it, but it is logical.
Thank you. It is as if crazy people think these two can mix. It’s already demonstrated to be a problem for those nearby.
Honestly, what the hell are others thinking by turning downtown into (yet) another residential area? Drive out existing businesses? I can just imagine the conflicts, if marijuana dispensaries are also added into what some advocate to be a semi-residential area, as well.
And then, there’s parking. (Not just for new residents, but for their guests, deliveries, etc.)
” It is as if crazy people think these two can mix. ”
That’s a strange comment. It’s definitely a comment coming from someone older or with an older mindset. There are a number of live/work/play models. But it also misses the point that many see live/ work as a way to shift the focus of downtown away the current entertainment based swing.
Wow, just wow. Coming from someone who constantly focuses on “implicit bias”.
To what, exactly? And how would that serve existing residents, not to mention new ones living on top of businesses?
Mixed use is a somewhat phony/forced concept. How many folks living upstairs (in new mixed use developments) actually run viable businesses downstairs?
I’ve seen mixed use in action, in very dense cities where it does work (but was not artificially “forced upon it”). For example, San Francisco (where costs are high for many miles around). Davis does not (yet) meet that description.
It seems more likely that mixed use is viewed as a method to avoid Affordable housing requirements, in order to build more housing. (Regardless of whether or not it’s good for the city.)
THink about it – downtown is much more of an urban lifestyle. Who is likely to choose to live in that? Probably not going to be a lot of families who need a yard and space. Probably not going to be retired people. So are looking at students and young professionals.
Not retired people?
Not everyone lives downtown, or adjacent to it. And, those folks (as well as visitors to downtown) perhaps couldn’t care less about how a “revised” downtown would serve primarily new residents. Especially if residential starts driving out existing businesses, thereby making downtown less appealing and viable.
They might, however, consider whether or not there’s parking, as well as the types of businesses located downtown. (What a fiasco, regarding the private Davis ACE parking lot that some opposed.)
Exactly. Not everyone lives downtown. So to say it’s crazy to think that entertainment and housing can live together is to forget that not everyone has the same interests or is in the same place in their lives.
Again, it has ALREADY been demonstrated to be a problem, for some who live nearby (let alone within the same building).
Ultimately, it will be businesses (and the city as a whole) that will lose out if downtown is converted to a semi-residential area. As well as those who would like to see a functioning downtown, but don’t live right next to it.
Nothing’s been demonstrated. There are a group of people who the lifestyle would fit and it would work well for. Again, I stand by my initial comment that there is a generational factor at play here in your views. That’s fine. But I think you have to recognize that.
For example, in my twenties I would have loved to have lived in an apartment downtown. Now that I’m in my forties with a family, not so much. That’s fine, we don’t have to build every home to target every citizen.
If one believes your premise, then you’re advocating for downtown to serve new residents (not existing ones). For what reason, I’m not sure. Other than the usual “build, baby build”.
It’s not likely that students or those without sufficient income will be able to afford living there, regardless. It will probably be those dreaded, complaining “old folks” that you refer to living there (who will then feel that downtown “belongs” to them, and will probably drive out existing businesses).
I maintain that the overall goal has not been well thought-out.
First, of all not necessarily. One of the community needs are places for young professionals who have graduated from UCD to be able to stay in the community and work at start ups or research facilities.
Second, why is that a bad thing even if new residents live there? You want absolutely no new residents to live in this town, ever?
Yeah, I’m sure that there’s tons of young/professional/entrepreneurs, who, even though there’s already existing developments (e.g., the Cannery) would only find it suitable to live on top of a nightclub. And, for that reason, existing plans and zoning should be changed (because they “obviously” serve no other purpose, except to impede). The heck with existing businesses, the residents and visitors they serve (including students), and the economic activity and taxes that they generate.
Regarding new residents in general, I would ask if the pursuit of such should involve endangering the existing downtown businesses, and completely changing the nature of downtown.
Again, it’s more likely that old folks will have the money needed to live downtown (in new developments).
“Yeah, I’m sure that there’s tons of young/professional/entrepreneurs, who, even though there’s already existing developments (e.g., the Cannery) would only find it suitable to live on top of a nightclub”
That’s just a ridiculous comment. First of all, we don’t have any nightclubs. Most blocks in Davis downtown don’t have any bars. And yes, having small apartments for young professionals and live/ work spaces are a need.
And, if there’s one stereotype that’s probably “true”, it’s that old folks are more likely to complain about the nightclub.
Live/work. Pffft! It’s more likely seen as a method to build housing, while avoiding Affordable housing requirements.
Check out the new “live/work” units at Fifth and Pena, and let us know how many viable businesses are located on the first floor. (Run by those living upstairs.)
By the way, how would you characterize the late-night business activitiy at KetMoRee, for example?
Maybe I’ll address live/ work in a separate article because it’s pretty involved.
What I would say is that KetMoRee is not a nightclub, Davis doesn’t have nightclubs per see and the ordinance changes have really changed the nature of downtown and calmed it way down at this point.
BTW, if I were adding housing, it would not likely be here on G St, I would think to the west and north were more likely locations.
From link, below.
https://localwiki.org/davis/KetMoRee
Again, this is only an example (and I don’t know if it’s up-to-date). But, bars and restaurants in general do not always mix well, with residential uses. Lots of other businesses also do not mix well, with residences. (Perhaps marijuana dispensaries, for example.)
Again, it’s apparently already been demonstrated to be a problem with neighbors (who are a significant distance, away). You’re fooling yourself if you think that having these businesses in the SAME building won’t create problems for your “imaginary” young, wealthy, entrepreneurs.
Regarding the “ageism” you’ve demonstrated, perhaps I’d call that same corresponding conclusion “wisdom”. (Even though I pretty much realized this when I was your age or even younger – not that long ago.) 🙂
Again, I think that’s dated. I have stated I wouldn’t look at housing on G St as my first location. And you’re making generational based assumptions about the appropriateness of mixes of uses.
By way of example, about 20 years ago I lived in Capitol Towers on 7th St in Sacramento. It was about a 14 story apartment building, but on the ground floor there were restaurants, little convenience stores and a bar. Every Friday and Saturday, there were a good amount of people who congregated outside and they made some noise. I think I was up on the 8th floor. But at that time, it didn’t bother me. I don’t think the mixes conflict as much as you think they do. They work in a lot of places. When you’re in your twenties it’s nice to have a few drinks and walk to your place and crash. When you’re in your forties, it’s a bit weird.
What’s the average age (and income) of those buying into the Mission Residence? (I seem to recall that it is quite expensive.) Lots of “young entrepreneurs”, there? 🙂
I seem to recall that a former council person was interested in buying (and living), there. (Someone quite a bit older than me.) I believe it was mentioned in the Enterprise.
How about the Trackside target population? Also an expensive place? (And, not even in “downtown proper”.) Any word regarding the B Street development (regarding price)?
Yeah – just saw your latest posting. Perhaps if there were 14-story buildings in Davis, you might get away from the noise. (Of course, new buildings are generally not that “affordable”, regardless.)
It’s senior housing.
You raise (by implication) the point that housing would have to be designed to meet the needs of the demographics most likely to want to live downtown. But there is nothing inherent to preclude that.
The point being that I’m not sure why some want to endanger the downtown that we already have. If the goal is to serve a new population, then that will impact the way it serves the existing population.
If the goal is simply to house more people in the city, then perhaps you should just say that. And, acknowledge that such a goal doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with “improving business”, downtown (and might actually have the opposite effect).
The opposition to the private parking lot for Davis ACE is a perfect example of this type of backward thinking. A good way to ensure that businesses flee downtown.
That’s a different point. The point you were arguing was the incompatibility of downtown living with the realities of entertainment. That some people do not want to endanger the downtown is separate from that.
It is not an entirely separate point.
If one envisions a downtown that’s designed to only serve those who live there (or nearby), then one would also advocate against parking for those who live farther away, or for visitors to downtown. (Unless you believe that the majority of trips to a downtown / or a hardware store should be accomplished via bicycle.)
For that matter, hardware stores might be one of the types of businesses that cannot survive well, in dense areas. (Perhaps one reason being that the land becomes too valuable to justify them.) Even Davis ACE is reducing its footprint (e.g., the household section, which has been reduced in size).
Eventually, those living in denser areas often travel outside of those areas for their basic shopping needs. (Often finding reduced costs, more selection, easy parking, etc. as they venture out of the urban core.)
Or the denser areas will generate their own demand for retail that doesn’t exist right now. That’s one of the theories behind mixed use. Put people where they work and they don’t have to drive and it also drives demand for goods and services in close proximity.
No comment needed… words speak for themselves…
> What I would say is that KetMoRee is not a nightclub
KetMoRee is a nightclub. It may not meet the legal definition of a nightclub, but it’s a nightclub. You see: lat at night, it’s a club.
Been to that establishment… like many estabishments (and people) it seems to have ‘two sides’ … I do not doubt, for a second, your account… ours was different, but it was early in the evening..
Don wrote
existing business
park
plaza
Central Park is not central and E St. Plaza is currently a parking lot with a small attached patio. The former has about five places within a half-block that serve food of one kind or another; the latter has more than 15. The park and two-days-a-week market has a couple of stores within the same distance, E St. Piazza has more than 15. The former has a minor artery on one side, the Davis Town Square has smaller local streets on all sides.
They are fundamentally different spaces. There’s not enough activity to keep anything happening all day around the park and playground, even on market days, Plaza de la Ciudad would be busier all day then now, serving varied populations all day, especially on weekends, from children playing in the center whilst their parents dine at expanded outdoor seating areas of existing establishments within sight, to elders meeting friends and family, to shoppers arriving by bike and parking on its periphery, to shoppers who arrive by car and walk no further distance then they would going from TJ Maxx to Target. (Just for fun, here’s something else at the same scale.) And they could catch a free ride 24/7/365 from the 4th and G parking structure or parking on the south side of the tracks if they so desired.
Am reminded of a Brewer and Shipley song… and one by Peter, Paul, and Mary…
Or, perhaps, a liquid of a pH less than or equal to 5…
> The Yolo County Transportation District is proposing a new shuttle service with self-driving, electric vehicles between the UC Davis campus and the Davis Amtrak station downtown.
Oh good thinking. Maybe this will help solve the homeless problem. That strategy seemed to work for the good people Tempe, AZ.
My idea – as I’ve mentioned before – is that it a solution like this would operate on a fixed-route. It also should be speed-limited to no more than 15 mph* and would communicate its presence with music. Services bringing people to and from Davis Depot – or a regional bus stop near I-80 – would make no intermediate stops. The Depot would be the terminus. It would be synchronized with Capitol Corridor, also if there are any delays to the schedule – is there a technical term for this?
Transdev – who operates Yolobus for YCTD – is already working on this solution.
* Except perhaps for the Richards tunnel itself, as there is physical separation from pedestrians (and cyclists who don’t use the road).
> a solution like this would operate on a fixed-route.
What fixed route would that be?
> It also should be speed-limited to no more than 15 mph
Good, it will only maime, not kill
> and would communicate its presence with music.
AC/DC’s Highway to Hell I would imagine.
> is there a technical term for this?
“Impossible”
> Transdev – who operates Yolobus for YCTD – is already working on this solution
And Uber is working on self-driving cars on a test track called Tempe.
> Except perhaps for the Richards tunnel itself, as there is physical separation from pedestrians (and cyclists who don’t use the road).
Cyclists who do use the road be d*mned.