By David M. Greenwald
It was supposed to be held two weeks ago, but the Planning Commission meeting was a victim to a storm that knocked out power and cable to portions of Davis. So now the Planning Commission will hold their third workshop on the Davis Downtown Plan, which is in the process of environmental review.
The Downtown Plan Advisory Commission (DPAC) put together a draft plan based on the input of citizens who completed their portion of the process in January 2020.
The Planning Commission now has the task of advising the Council on various land use issues.
Staff poses a number of questions for the Planning Commission to address much of these land uses issues—these relate to residential, retail, and office uses. The Planning Commission will primarily be determining whether they think the land use designations are appropriate.
In December of 2019, DPAC made a series of specific recommendations:
-
- On affordable housing, DPAC unanimously voted to recommend that the Downtown Plan should support affordable housing downtown, but that it should be part of the larger city-wide efforts on affordable housing.
- On the sustainability implementation actions, DPAC voted unanimously to recommend that a better sense of prioritization and timing be provided in the Downtown Plan when it goes forward to decision makers.
- On the University Avenue/Rice Lane neighborhood, DPAC voted unanimously to recommend that the Downtown Plan reflect the consensus from the discussions with the neighbors and property owners for changes.
- For the properties on the east side of the railroad tracks between 3rd and 5th Streets, DPAC voted 7 to 4 with 1 abstention to recommend that the commercial properties on the east side of the tracks from 3rd Street to 5th Street be allowed 4 stories with a 4th story stepback and that the Trackside property be treated consistent with the adjacent commercial properties.
- A later motion was made to rescind the DPAC recommendation that the commercial properties on the east side of the tracks from 3rd Street to 5th Street be allowed 4 stories with a 4th story stepback and that the Trackside property be treated consistent with the adjacent commercial properties. This motion failed by a vote of 4 to 5 with 1 abstention.
- On the Davis Community Church site, DPAC voted unanimously with one abstention to recommend that DPAC support the Davis Community Church initiative in their letter to allow more intensive development.
- On the Hibbert Lumber block, DPAC voted unanimously with one abstention to recommend that the Hibbert block, the 500 block of G Street, be placed in a Designated Special Area similar to the area north of the Coop or as part of the same Designated Special Area.
- On the issue of further plan changes and community engagement, DPAC voted unanimously with one abstention to recommend that as subsequent amendments to the plan are proposed that begin to address issues raised in the public comments and issues in the transition areas, there be engagement with the respective neighborhoods and any particular interests or businesses.
- On the issue of maximum unit numbers, DPAC voted unanimously to recommend to elimination of the cap for a maximum number of units on the building types in order to support higher densities and more affordable units.
- On the issue of supporting affordable housing, DPAC voted unanimously to recommend that the City use the removal from the plan of a maximum number of units as a way to incentivize affordable housing.
- On the issue of transportation and transportation management, DPAC voted unanimously to recommend that the development of a robust transit and active transportation network be thoroughly examined in subsequent steps of this process including as alternative in the EIR.
- On the issue of the financial cost to businesses of transportation management requirements, DPAC voted 11 to 1 to recommend the concerns of local businesses with respect to the potential costs of TMAs should be recognized and that the next steps of the process include robust discussion with the business community in the final design before incorporation of a TMA (Transportation Management Association) into the plan.
- For their general recommendation on the Draft Downtown Plan, DPAC voted unanimously to recommend to move the review of the first draft of the downtown plan and zoning code from DPAC to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Furthermore, that appropriate plan amendments be examined which consider the comments received to date and that those amendments be widely distributed to the community when available with the understanding that some might be available sooner rather than much later.
Currently the environmental review process is underway and includes the preparation of the EIR. The scoping period ended in November. There is a fourth workshop planned for February as well.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
10/28/2020
Dear Davis Planning Commission:
Overall the DPAC meetings went well and there was widespread consensus — with one major exception. The primary disappointment in the plan/meetings was that the most contentious issue was a de-facto replaying of the Trackside conflict – i.e., what is the reasonable maximum height for buildings along the 1/2-block width between the railroad tracks and the H/I Alley?
The buildings along the east side of the railroad tracks — that are in the downtown planning area and also in Old East Davis — are in the DPAC plan at a three (3) story max, which the neighborhood agrees with. Yet, after the plan was completed, the committee voted for a four (4) story max, after the plan was published. What was seen at the large public meeting (at the Community Church) that released the DPAC plan was three (3) stories max – so unless you knew that DPAC committee later voted (by a fractured vote) for a higher border, you would think that (3) stories was the consensus. This was deceptive and wrong. Adding to the insult is that the University Ave area transition max was not raised to four (4) stories.
Opticos was much praised for their expertise, yet two of their primary planning concepts were ignored — no, outright flushed — by the DPAC committee, by ignoring the “missing middle” and “smooth transition” concepts for the eastern border of downtown. The Old East neighborhood is OK with a reasonable build – at a three-story (3) to one-story (1) transition across the H/I Alley. Four (4) to One (1) across the width of the narrow H/I Alley cannot not be considered a reasonable transition, and ignores the ‘missing middle’.
There may be a workable solution to this. At the end of the last DPACmeeting, Opticos consultants were asked if they could work with the Old East neighborhood, the City, and the Trackside Partners, and come up with a building-blocking strategy and design that could meet neighborhood and developer needs – Opticos said: YES, THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. Yet, this plausible solution of true mediation for this contentious issue has seemingly gone by the wayside.
I strongly suggest that this option to mediate the east-border transition using the professionals at Opticos be implemented. This could be done first for the Trackside parcel. If that goes well, a similar strategy could be used to negotiate an agreeable solution for the remainder of the east-border transition parcels.
Sincerely Submitted,
Alan C. Miller, Resident
Old East Davis
Seems to me that the neighbors themselves have come-up with a pretty effective “building-blocking strategy”. 🙂 Good for them!
(Though I’m not sure what impact any changes in “official” city plans might have on that strategy.)
Clever as the double use of “block” is in your comment, the intent has never been to ‘block’ the building of a new building, the intent is to have the building blocked in form through a process that is acceptable to both Trackside Partners and OEDNA. This approach has NOT been done; and methodologies such as legal action and mediation have proven either ineffective or bitter victories. This could be a positive, win-win solution. Compared to legal action and building delay it’s dirt cheap! Jeeeeee-suuuuus, City People, let’s give it a shot!
I know that, just having fun with the terminology.
I think everyone agrees that the site is appropriate for redevelopment.
The part that is hidden from most people is (exactly) what “pencils out”. Of course, the developer has had to make some additional entries into the cost column – as a result of actions taken in regard to their preferred proposal.
Presumably, those entries might have been avoided (and the owners might have avoided other escalating costs, and might have been collecting rent by now).
Maybe the larger lesson is that it’s cheaper and more beneficial to work with neighbors in the first place – even when city officials themselves don’t support the neighbors.
Amen to that! 🙂 🙂 🙂
For an example of this working – one need only look out my window where a humongous, five-story student-focused apartment complex is nearing completion and will be collecting rent in 2021. The developers there came to us and asked us what we wanted for mitigation. We told them, they agreed. So far, at least, it’s going well – we’ll see in the completion phase and let y’all know! Do I like a giant 75′ student-filled wall going up where I used to have have sky views to Dixon? Hell, no! But we worked it out, because the developers approached us civilly, as fellow humans with concerns. What a concept! 😐
Compare that to Trackside . . . no need to rehash the story, y’all know it . . . but they started years previous and if they cooperated they could have been collecting rent in 2018; now if they collect rent before 2025 I’d be surprised . . . if ever!
The Planning Commission and the City really needs to think about the 1/2-block-wide from 3rd to 5th East of the tracks. They can recommend an Opticos-style architecturally-based solution to this issue that will solve the border war in the planning phase – by mitigating using real form-based solutions using blocking style, or we can go to war again as each parcel is proposed for redevelopment. Why give lip-service to ‘form-based planning’, ‘the missing middle’ and ‘transitions’ if you ignore using them on the most critical and controversial 1/2 x 2 block land section in Davis?!!???!!!
If there ever is an actual ‘civil’ shooting war in Davis over land, it’ll no doubt be along the railroad tracks between 3rd and 5th – if the City fails to solve this transition in this, the planning phase. Have no doubt the neighborhood is armed and ready 😐 ;-0 😉 😐 [Oh, my God Mabel, was that a metaphor, or did he mean it literally? Is he some kind of 2nd amendment gun nut?] :-0
“ Maybe the larger lesson is that it’s cheaper and more beneficial to work with neighbors in the first place”
a point we can all agree on.
When is/was this meeting? No dates in the story.
Now!
https://zoom.us/j/98607638051
Richard – It says tonight. It’s today’s article.