By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – On Wednesday the Davis Planning Commission will hold the fifth workshop as part of their review of the Draft Downtown Davis Specific Plan and Form-Based Code. One of the aspects of zoning that the Planning Commission will be asked to evaluate are live/work units.
The Draft Downtown Plan defined live/work units: “A unit that combines and accommodate both residential and the place of business for the resident(s) of the unit. Typically characterized with having the ‘work’ function at the ground level and the ‘live’ function on upper levels.”
Staff writes, “While it is not expected that live/work units would constitute a significant amount of new development, staff believes that increasing opportunities for live/work units is consistent with the Downtown Plan and City policies to create a range of housing types and also to support commercial uses.
“The proposed live/work standards are detailed and thorough, but staff believes that they can be substantially simplified, which would help to facilitate their development and clarify the use,” they write. “Commercial activity in largely residential areas can create concerns about parking or noise, but staff does not see inherent conflicts created by live/work units within the Downtown Plan area, which is already a highly mixed use area and is envisioned to remain mixed use.”
While live/work units themselves are not expected to play a large role in the downtown, the plan anticipates a sizable increase in mixed-use housing overall—with ground-level retail and other commercial uses, second-story office use and upper level residential use as a more efficient use of space than the current configuration of downtown that is largely one or two stories.
Overall the plan anticipates that, by bringing people into the downtown core, they will create more demand for retail and entertainment opportunities and energize the core area. As noted 
previously, there are fiscal concerns with the cost of constructing such high-density, mixed-use units.
Will we have more need or less need for such spaces in the downtown as the result of COVID?
Staff overall proposes modifications in order to simplify live/work standards.
Currently the draft code requires an administrative use permit, but that would be changed to a permitted use.
Right now there is a requirement for “at least one of the employees to reside on-site.” Staff is proposing no required occupancy, arguing, “Although typically live/work would have a resident employee, change may also include modifying the definition for flexibility.”
Staff wants to evaluate “the need for operating requirements,” as it “currently does not allow space to be rented to someone not living in the unit, requires notice to occupants, limits retail sales, limits the number of nonresident employees, and references potential AUP conditions for customer visits. Live/Work units would be required to comply with the Building Code which may already establish certain limitations.”
They also want to evaluate provisions for review of changes in use: “It currently requires changes in a live/work unit to an all residential use or all commercial use to be reviewed by the City. Exterior changes to the building or improvements requiring building permits require City review and it is not clear if the provision is intended as additional review or a disclosure of general review requirements.”
Staff has three questions:
Is there any concern if the “work” space is separately rented to someone not living on the premises?
Is there any need to limit the number of employees who do not reside in the unit or to limit the total number of employees?
Is there any need for additional City review if a live/work unit is changed to all residential or all commercial?
One of the questions not addressed in the planning for the Downtown Plan is how the world will change post-COVID, and undoubtedly no one knows for sure. Some speculate that the way we create live/work spaces will change dramatically.
“Design is going to be much more personal and in some ways technical, as people use their homes for work, school, and beyond,” said designer Christiane Lemieux in Architectural Digest last year. “Designers are going to have to be very conscious and thoughtful about how to make people’s lives better in the spaces they have.”
Forbes last year discussed a development in Virginia that, while designed pre-COVID, fit the needs of the pandemic.
“Unlike most buildings, Mission Lofts allow each of the units to be occupied at all time at the tenants’ choice as either a place to live, a place to work, or a place to do both,” says developer Robert Seldin, CEO of Highland Square Holdings. “The combined live/work space winds up with the net result of having a 300% potential utility in a 100% physical class.”
Forbes notes: “Even if, three years ago, when Highland Square Holdings began work on Mission Lofts, Seldin couldn’t have predicted that the development would come online amid a health pandemic that has produced a widespread shift to working from home, the project certainly fits the day.”
“Part of the benefit of this product type is that it allows the building to adapt to wherever the market may go instantaneously and for no additional cost,” Seldin says.
One question the Planning Commission could ask: does the Davis Downtown Plan “fit the day” and can it be adaptable to an uncertain future?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
This the IMPERATIVE question for this plan now. We cannot plunge ahead on the Downtown Plan without digging into this question. Why set out a path for the next several decades that potentially leads us the wrong direction? Our record with updating the General Plan indicates that we can’t count on being able to adapt the plan as we go–we largely have to get it right at the outset unless we change our planning habits.
Really? A 20+ year plan dictated by circumstances in the last 15 months?
I would put ‘climate change’, GHG, the price of tea in China, City financial trends, etc., FAR above Covid as a ‘touchstone’… to each, their own, I guess…
It’s not so much the last 12 months but rather what everyone learned about the future. As a business, I know there are things that we will never do again because we learned there are better ways. So now you have a 20 year old plan without considering how the world might be permanently changed – you have to at least ask the questions.
To which, there are no answers… only speculations… each person, with their personal agenda (which can be hidden behind other, unrelated ‘issues’), will have different speculations…
We can always do the ‘paralysis by analysis’ thingy…
Good point Richard, a point that Jim Gray tried to make last fall as well.
I believe live-work is clearly a much larger part of the world’s future. People living and working in the same space. I’m doing it right now, many will stay that way – but would be nice to have units built with that in mind. I doubt we could build too many of these units if we tried.
It will be a “niche-market”, but I believe the niche has existed, and will likely grow… particularly with the 20’s – 30’s (independent of Covid, as long as it’s close to transit, customer parking, amenities… I know of an architect who designed his own… very, very nice… office below, then living space for two upstairs… that was ~ 15 years ago… edge of Core Area… no reason that wouldn’t work in the main Core Area…
Unsure how the concept worked out on Del Rio Place (just west of Pena)… whole small subdivision was designed for the live-work concept… looked reasonable on paper… just not sure how the real thing has worked out…
It worked out “fine”.
That is, if you like to see commercial zoning converted to residential use.
Live-work is another phony concept. Like “green” subdivisions.
Even more so, with telecommuting. (The business that one works for doesn’t have to be “downstairs” – or even in the same city).
Evidence of that?
Take a look at Del Rio, and give us your impression of the commercial activity there (vs. residential use).
I understand that it was previously zoned for commercial use – for years (ever since Mace Ranch was developed), with no apparent interest.
Of course, mixed-use has lesser (or no) requirements for Affordable housing, compared to residential developments. My impression is that developers look at the “commercial” portion of mixed-use in the same way that they view Affordable housing.
I’ve heard similar comments from someone with more knowledge than I have, regarding this category of zoning.
Does anyone actually “audit” what the so-called commercial space ends up being used for, in mixed-use developments like this? And if not, why is any assumption whatsoever being made?
So you made a very sweeping statement “live-work is another phony concept” and your offer of proof is conjecture about a single example.
If you (or more importantly, any city official) cannot answer the following question, that’s a concern. Especially for areas outside of retail zones, where the public may not have access to the “businesses”:
Ron, I’m not the one who said, “live-work is another phony concept” without any evidence to back it up.
Tell you what – “ignore” that comment, and focus on the more important one.
Have you called the city to ask them?
I’m also not running an “investigative blog”.
But if no one is actually checking into this, it calls into question the justification for converting commercial space to “mixed use”.
It is probably more of a concern in areas outside of downtown. (Business use downtown is often publicly-accessible and more obvious.)
The article focused on proposed zoning and expressed concern that the city had not taken into consideration changes in COVID conditions.
You brought up a completely different issue which is fine but failed to do any research. You made a claim. You have presented no evidence for any of your claims nor have you done any checking to find out if you are remotely accurate. At this point, you’re spitballing.
Yes, I know of one of the buildings between 2nd and 5th which was built for commercial use, and then the owners added their own living space on top. Spectacular view and great cross-ventilation, and very quiet at night.
You misunderstood, or are mis-representing… one of the two have to be true…
You have a partial truth (kernel of)… it was not zoned for residential… that would have been an accessory, discretionary use… but not prohibited.
Not surprising from someone who asserted that ‘Creekside’ was proposed @ that location…
Just a reminder: there is a limitation on comments per article—five comments per article per commenter.