by Ramon Solis
The City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved the development of Parkview Place Apartments on 337 D Street. The project would demolish the existing Peña House and would create room for four-housing units and a work space on the ground floor.
“We think it will be one of the best examples of sustainability that will be visible in the country,” said Dick Bourne, representing the group of seniors who plan to move into Parkview.
The City Council’s decision to approve it was counter to the Planning Commission conclusion last month, which was a 4-3 vote against the project.
Lucas Frerichs, chair of the City of Davis Planning Commission, voiced support of the project and recommended that the project continue oversight in conforming to the Core Area Specific Plan and its associated design specifications.
The building’s flat roof is arguably incongruent with the plan’s vision for structures with a “single-family residential form with a pitched roof” as stated in one of the planning department’s staff report. Some of these issues, such as the one previously mentioned, deal with soft “guidelines”.
Other design concerns, however, might not be subject to interpretation.
At the city council meeting, one neighbor expressed privacy concerns regarding the building’s height and the fact that the building would have twenty-four windows. It was argued that the third floor of the building would make more visible the lives of neighboring residents.
It’s possible that the windows become translucent or the tree-line raised to increase privacy, others alleged.
“To me, I only see this project as enhancing the downtown,” said Councilmember Dan Wolk.
Wolk said he “completely respects the privacy concerns that were brought up”, but he also said, “I think that when it comes to, um, sort of how we think about developing in our community, in our downtown, in terms of greater infill, of greater density, this is the kind of project we should be encouraging.”
While City Councilmember Sue Greenwald was supportive of infill development, she also had some reservations.
“I think that we have to be very careful not to destroy the character of our downtown. I’ve seen it happen in Berkeley,” said Greenwald.
One other issue of this project concerned the preservation of the Peña house property itself. Although the property never achieved statewide historic designation status, the home is of particular local importance. The home is believed to be one of the oldest in Davis, having been in the region since 1841.
The home is also a symbol of the Peña family, which has been in the region for as long as the house.
Dennis Dingemans, director of the Hattie Weber Museum, which exhibits the history and heritage of Davis, suggested physically transporting the Peña House, at least temporarily, to another site such as the City of Davis corporation yard. Others, as well as the environmental impact report, cited the infeasibility of such an action.
Consequently, a plaque will likely be placed on the project site both as a mitigation measure, protecting historic resources as dictated by the project’s environmental impact report, and, more importantly, as a commemoration to the Peña family and home.
Some at the council meeting had concerns over the three-story and twenty-four windowed nature of the building and its potential lack of privacy.
Other existing LEED platinum certified buildings in Davis include the UC Davis Brewery, Winery, and Food Complex and the UC Davis Graduate School of Management.
For now, the fate of the Peña home itself is yet to be determined.
—Ramon Solis reporting
The height should not be a problem, on a corner instead of in the middle of the block, next to the huge fraternity. The trees should block views of neighboring properties. 4 families will be living there, instead of one, which is a part of a stated goal of attracting people to live in the downtown area. It will be different, but it will be fine.
[i]”The home is believed to be one of the oldest in Davis, having been in the region since 1841.”[/i]
The house is believed to have been built in 1890. No one knows for sure the exact year. Also, it likely was located on a different lot at one point and then it was moved (supposedly around 1906) to its D Street location.
It also should be noted that the house was doubled in size sometime between 1920 and 1931. Again, no one knows what year the addition was added to the western half of the house.
[i]”The home is also a symbol of the Peña family, which has been in the region for as long as the house.”[/i]
The Peña family dates back in our region 50 years prior to the construction of this particular house. However, I think it is fair to say–even though there are some other extant structures* in Davis owned by other members of the Peña family–that 337 D Street, which was the long-time home of Narcissa Peña, is the foremost symbol of the Peña family in Davis.
For more information on Peña history in our region, read my column here ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/pena-history-will-soon-disappear/[/url]).
—————-
*John Lofland, a man who knows 100 times as much as I do about Davis history as I do, was critical of me for not pointing out in my column that there are other houses in Davis which are tied to other members of the Peña family. In my defense, none of those have the Peña surname tied to them, and as such, not one is called by anyone “the Peña house.”
[i]”At the city council meeting, one neighbor expressed privacy concerns regarding the building’s height and the fact that the building would have twenty-four windows.”[/i]
The concern was not that the building will have 24 windows. It will have far, far more than that. The concern of Mrs. Oettinger, who owns the 2-story mixed use project south of Parkview Place is that there will be 24 windows on the south side of Parkview Place looking down into her second story apartment. In my opinion, this is a legitimate planning issue.
The problem for the Parkview Place owners is that their design requires all those windows to collect passive solar energy in the cooler months. Dick Bourne told me a number of times that the reason he was so attracted to this particular property was because its orientation would allow for passive solar collection of that type. Mr. Bourne could not remove or alter those windows and still achieve his design objectives, which will make Parkview Place as energy efficient as possible.
Ryan: [i]”The height should not be a problem, on a corner instead of in the middle of the block, next to [b]the huge fraternity[/b].”[/i]
I believe its height does conform to the existing zoning.
But I think your point about its corner location on 4th Street is important. In my view, I think it will be okay if 4th Street redevelops such that it has more 3 story buildings, particularly ones with commercial uses on the ground floor and apartments above. By contrast, I think we need to preserve the bungalow character of the midblocks which adjoin it, on streets like D Street.
And FWIW, “the huge fraternity” will be demolished in a few months, too. That building is in poor shape and its owners–the Phi Delts–have plans to construct a new, slighly smaller building in its place.
[i]”The problem for the Parkview Place owners is that their design requires all those windows to collect passive solar energy in the cooler months…”[/i]
That would make the row of redwoods that could provide privacy for the neighbor problemmatic.
Demolishing the Pena house is a no-brainer. An intelligent and creative
approach (true to the spirit of Narcissa Pena, the Pena family and the can-do pioneers of Davis) would be to move this house onto the Hattie Weber Museum grounds, so future generation can get a look at how craftsmen of previous centuries built homes to last. This new building being proposed is just yet another pre-fab eyesore.
It was brought forth at the council meeting that the Pena house may be moved, so demolition is not a “done deal” yet. They are looking for someone who wants it or may store it as mentioned later in the article. And the new owners are offering some funds to move it, equivalent to demolition costs.
Another issue I’d like to address is the 24 south facing windows and privacy vs. passive solar collection. How much less solar do you get if you use translucent glass on some of those windows? Can’t the south neighbor get some sheer window coverings, letting in light but preserving privacy?
[i]”This new building being proposed is just yet another pre-fab eyesore.”[/i]
That is false in all respects. Not only does the architecture look nice–Mike Corbett designed it and it looks stylistically quite a lot like his beautiful apartment building on B Street between Shepards Lane and 8th Street–but it is not in any sense “pre-fab.”
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8E58wJl44NE/T-4D2-zTq7I/AAAAAAAAAnA/2NStGRcII3I/s1600/parkview.jpg[/img]
Every aspect of it is custom and unique. Dick Bourne, who will live in it and designed its energy features, is a brilliant and innovative engineer. There is no other building in Davis* quite like this one. Before making such a harsh and uniformed comment, Brian, you ought to read the EIR on Parkview Place ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/projects/337 d_street_parkview_place_apartments/Parkview Place_FINAL EIR_May 2012.pdf[/url]).
See, for example, page 28: [i]”It is intended as a net zero energy project with passive solar design, photovoltaics, radiant heating and cooling, solar thermal heating, high-efficiency appliances, and ground-source heat pumps.”[/i]
————————–
*No other building in Davis? Well, maybe one other building. That would be the extremely innovative, zero-energy house that Dick Bourne built for himself and his family at 2379 Isle Royale Lane ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/the-bourne-house-not-your-average-listing/[/url]), right next to the West Davis Pond.
[i]”the extremely innovative, zero-energy house that Dick Bourne built for himself and his family at 2379 Isle Royale Lane …”[/i]
A note on that house: Even on days when the outside temperature has gone above 105 degrees*, the inside temperature, without air conditioning, never gets above 78 degrees. The key is its water cooling system built into the roof. The Parkview Place apartment building will have a similar system to keep its units all comfortable, even on our hottest days.
*Did you know that the hottest day in Davis came on June 25, 1925? It was 115 degrees. That week was the hottest week ever for Davis. June 24, 1925 it was 113 degrees. June 25, 115 degrees. June 26, 112 degrees. Keep in mind that almost no homes in Davis then had air conditioning. And none had the Bourne cooling design system.
I was being humorous above, but I frequently consult with people who have windows looking down into their yards and houses. We are usually suggesting large evergreen shrubs and trees to provide privacy screening. A three-story house with windows facing down onto a two-story property is a serious privacy intrusion. If those windows are intended for passive solar, any evergreen screening planted by the neighbors will be a problem. I can see legal issues arising from this, since there is a presumption of privacy pitted against the desire for passive solar access.
[quote]The proposed development is a senior-friendly residence, said Jerry Schimke, one of the partners of Parkview Place. Although the project is not senior housing per se, the building would, for instance, comply to standards of the American with Disabilities Act.[/quote]
Because this project was touted as “senior-friendly”, I made the mistaken assumption is was senior housing. The developers made it very clear it was not senior housing. If someone intends to inherit, it could pass to someone not a senior, is what the developer indicated during public comment. Personally, I find the term “senior friendly” somewhat misleading, and I know a lot of people who thought this was senior housing, when in fact it is not…
[i]” I find the term “senior friendly” somewhat misleading, and I know a lot of people who thought this was senior housing, when in fact it is not … “[/i]
Can someone explain to me why it matters to anyone who will not be living in Parkview place whether the homeowners are aged 65 to 75 (as the proponents are now) or if a couple later moves in which is 45 and 50?
Keep in mind that these units are going to be extremely expensive. This is high-end housing in every respect. It is not suited for college-aged renters, like the fraternity next door. It is not suited for low-income families. It is suited for couples with a lot of money. I cannot see how the ages of these owner-occupiers really will harm anyone else.
Another thing to keep in mind about the ownership structure: The building will be jointly owned*. So when one couple passes away or moves out, the other three remaining couples will have to approve the buyer of the open unit. They are not going to approve someone who does not fit in with the group. They are most likely to choose a new couple who is in the older age bracket or close to it.
*The interiors of the four apartments will not be jointly owned, but the building will be owned in condominium and thus the majority of the owners will have veto rights over any sales of units.
[quote]Keep in mind that these units are going to be extremely expensive. This is high-end housing in every respect. It is not suited for college-aged renters, like the fraternity next door. It is not suited for low-income families. It is suited for couples with a lot of money. I cannot see how the ages of these owner-occupiers really will harm anyone else. [/quote]
My objection has nothing to do with the project itself or what age person will purchase it. What I find objectionable is the way in which it was marketed – as “senior friendly”, which the public understood to mean “senior housing”. This is misleading. A more appropriate way to market it would have been to have said it is “ADA compliant” or “universally designed”. Too often the word “senior” is improperly used for marketing purposes in a misleading way as a wedge issue, to convince politicians and the public something is a more worthy product because it is for “seniors”.
[quote]Another thing to keep in mind about the ownership structure: The building will be jointly owned*. So when one couple passes away or moves out, the other three remaining couples will have to approve the buyer of the open unit. They are not going to approve someone who does not fit in with the group. They are most likely to choose a new couple who is in the older age bracket or close to it. [/quote]
This is not necessarily the case. The developer indicated he was interested in having ownership shares inherited, either by children/grandchildren, and was the reason he insisted this was not senior housing…