I do not wish to detract from the Mission Residence project. I think it is a good densification infill project that, taken alone and in isolation, would provide a great model going forward for an efficient use of space. As Councilmember Brett Lee, the lone dissenting vote, suggested, it is an attractive project that he would not mind moving into in 15 years.
Moreover, the city planners and developers were innovative in creating a four-story building, that would largely not be noticeable from the street view that it is that tall. Setbacks and location will minimize some of the visual impacts. All of these are positives that are unfortunately drowned out by a series of negatives.
The first and most glaring is the abuse of process here. The city went through an extensive visioning process for B Street. The process included a large amount of community feedback and extensive community buy in – give and take and compromise.
In fact, it was by no means unanimous – even at the end of the process, neighbors and other residents complained about the alterations to the neighborhood. But that is ultimately what the council decided and those were the rules that should bind it.
What has happened since that visioning process is that each project has come forward and attempted to move the line, and, while the council held the line with Marie Ogydziak’s design, the council here moved the line forward for this site, without changing the overall zoning of the area.
And while that may appear to be an important concession, the reality is that the precedent has been set – the council will break the agreements and rules without further input or going back to the drawing board.
We want public participation, we want public buy-in, but if the city is simply willing to throw out the agreements without even a reasonable showing of change in circumstances, it will undermine that process. What incentive do residents have to compromise if the city is not willing to stick to their bargains and agreements?
So, we agree with those neighbors who complained that a three-year process was thrown out – whether there was any warning or not is debatable, but what is not debatable is that the Planning Commission unanimously rejected the changes and that there was no comparable process here to undo the agreements from 2006 that were adopted in 2008.
The second problem here follows from the first. Former Councilmember Stephen Souza supported the project and argued that the whole point of the visioning process was that, prior to this process, there were four different zoning schemes for this area but “it really didn’t have any guidance.”
He argued that, without this process, it would have been a “hodgepodge” and that this brought consistency to the people who live in this area.
Mr. Souza is correct, but the problem is that what he is supporting actually produces that which he is attempting to avoid – a hodgepodge of designs.
B Street is going to look like a series of disjointed buildings that loosely fit into a planning scheme that has been abrogated capriciously at the whims of council. So now we have Central Park West on one block, we have Mission Residence on another block, and we are going to have a series of other redevelopment and infill projects converting the older single story flats into dense infill projects.
The point: there is no cohesion here. The city is going to fill this project by project, rather than as a unified development like we present on the outskirts of town or even in a larger infill zone like Chiles or Verona. At least there, we have a unifying concept for a neighborhood.
What is this area going to look like as we stack unrelated project upon unrelated project? Is this going to be the attractive transition from university to adjacent neighborhood to downtown that Stephen Souza envisions, or an inconsistent zone of crammed infill projects that look like they were dropped from the sky and plopped down?
Remember, this is what people who enter the community from the university are going to see. Whatever joint guidelines were laid out in the extensive visioning process are being thrown out by expediency and changed values of council.
And that ends up being the problem – any agreement reached at one time with the council and neighbors can be thrown out by three members of the next council.
We can lament NIMBYism, but people also plop down their life savings to buy homes and live in communities and if they negotiate in good faith, is it really NIMBYism to complain when the agreement is summarily abrogated by four votes on the next council?
Finally, I am troubled by the nature of the agreement itself. As the council engaged in a merry-go-round, it became more and more disconcerting – the message. The original theme that Jim Kidd presented to council was that he had intended this as a senior-friendly facility.
In fact, he looked to develop it as a 55-year or older age-restricted facility. When he realized that was impractical, instead of going to a 62-year and older age-restricted facility, he argued for a CC&R (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) in which there would be provisions that this would be owner-occupied.
One of the complaints from the neighbors and some of the concerns of the councilmembers was the idea that this not become a rental property. While that may be reasonable, the next set of discussions made it clear where this was headed.
There were concerns voiced that a CC&R was not enforceable by the city, that the property owner might not enforce them, and also concerns that a parent apparently plopped down $700,000 on a unit at Central Park West and transferred the deed over to their college-aged child.
Kari Fry lives on University between 3rd and 4th Streets, and she argued that the rental units cause far more impact than the owner-occupancy units in terms of the number of cars and debris that end up in the alleyway. “The idea of this project being owner-occupied required is a real critical thing and makes the concessions potentially outside the guidelines very worthwhile.”
The message here is unmistakable – people do not want college students living in this area.
Now, think about that, we are in a neighborhood bordering the college and the message is college students are not wanted.
We live in a community where we look to the university with pride, they are the source of innovation and the chief employment facility and we want to exclude students from our midst because they are noisy and uncleanly.
The council was so willing, at least for a time, to accommodate this demand that they were willing to consider the facility as a 62-year or older age-restricted one, just to ensure that no parent could buy a unit and then transfer the deed to their college-aged child.
Is that really what this community has become about?
So as much as I sympathize with the residents on the impacts and broken agreements, I am disturbed by the provincial and elitist attitude that wants to preclude college students from living next to a college campus. That strikes me as wrong, and for that reason I was glad to see that the council changed course following a break and went back to the original proposal.
The bottom line here, though, is that I am concerned that the city went through a lengthy process to set the guidelines and then has been so willing to move those lines without a good showing for changed circumstances. I am concerned that the character of this neighborhood will be not only altered, but ruined, through the uneven process for redeveloping the neighborhood one or two parcels at a time.
And so, while I do not have a particular problem with this project (though I can understand why neighbors are concerned), I think the city needs to rethink how this process is going to proceed moving forward, and ensure that this neighborhood has more cohesion than the process has rendered thus far.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David wrote:
> One of the complaints from the neighbors and some
> of the concerns with the councilmembers was the idea
> that this not become a rental property.
It is interesting that ~50 years after Dr. Martin Luther King spoke about the unfairness of laws that required “property ownership” to vote were really about stopping blacks from voting that Davis is making laws about “property ownership” as a way to prevent students from living in a new building on B Street (maybe Davis can put anti-student deed restrictions to keep students out of some neighborhoods the way anti-black deed restrictions did in most of the south and even in California as recently at the 1960’s)…
“The message here is unmistakable – people do not want college students living in this area….Is that really what this community has become about?”
I didn’t take away this some serious antagonism about the university and students. This project was not proposed as student housing. It was seen as a building where older Davisites to stay in place for their declining years. How can this promise be assured?, I think folks were just batting around how those living conditions could be maintained for people who buy into such a condo. It isn’t a matter of bias or dislike of the university or kids, it’s a practical concern.
It isn’t that people don’t want college students living in that area–they already are. And given the location and the inability to assure senior residents of the proposed building won’t eventually be overrun by students, I suspect a bunch of them will be moving in shortly after it’s built.
js… i hear your point on this but listening to the whole meeting, i have to concur with david particularly comments made by ms. fry, et al.
Build it and let everyone live there.
I’d hate to live in a building with everyone the same age.
Boring…
“It is interesting that ~50 years after Dr. Martin Luther King spoke about the unfairness of laws that required “property ownership” to vote were really about stopping blacks from voting that Davis is making laws about “property ownership” as a way to prevent students from living in a new building on B Street”
i agree but for a different reason. Remember the campus is not part of the city so building student housing on campus serves to keep students disenfranchised from city politics. Anyone who is concerned about the curtailment of section 5 of the voting rights act by the Supreme Court should also be concerned about the rights of students to live and vote in the City of Davis.
When I walk out my front door, the five houses to my left are student rentals. On the right, three of the five houses are student rentals. Why should the B street community feel that they need to be treated any differently than any other neighborhood. If students want to live in these homes a couple of blocks off campus then they should. It really is nobody’s business to interfere, and certainly not the City’s.
“I do not wish to detract from the Mission Residence project.” Almost all of what follows, to the contrary. lol. Bless you, David, I need a laugh .
Biddlin ;>)/
While the neighbor NIMBY comments certainly were pointed about the problems with rentals (read student renters). i don’t think the council members’ discussion reflected an anti-university attitude. Some issues were more than just anger at students. If parking’s already a problem in the neighborhood, why approve a building with less than the minimum requirement, for example?
“If parking’s already a problem in the neighborhood, why approve a building with less than the minimum requirement, for example?”
If you live downtown within easy walking distance to shopping and work (or school), do you need a car? Maybe we should be looking at this development as the first step in changing the paradigm of how people live in the downtown area.
I am perplexed by the notion that property owners would be allowed to discriminate against students.
Don’t want students around you, don’t live in a college town… or move away from the campus at least.
If the issue is students not being good neighbors, then just have some strong CC&Rs and enforcement.
Mark makes a good point. You can provide fewer spots for cars at this location. At the Cannery they may want to provide 3-car garages.
[quote]At the Cannery they may want to provide 3-car garages. [/quote]
LOL, I’ve got a 3-car garage and can barely fit one small car in it.
“Almost all of what follows, to the contrary. “
Completely untrue. I didn’t say a single thing against the development itself.
I complained about the process, complained that there would be a mishmash of styles and developments, and complained about anti-student provisions, not one of those were a criticism against the building design itself. You stand corrected.
” i don’t think the council members’ discussion reflected an anti-university attitude. “
I agree.
Mark West wrote: [quote]If you live downtown within easy walking distance to shopping and work (or school), do you need a car? Maybe we should be looking at this development as the first step in changing the paradigm of how people live in the downtown area.[/quote]
I completely agree and believe that this is a position that is consistent with 1) a strong commitment to conserving a critical local resource (Class 1 and 2 soil farmland); 2) a concomitant call for densification; 3) a commitment to increasing/improving multimodal transportation connections.
Mr West is writing about our future.
BTW: We should not have [b]minimum[/b] parking requirements for redevelopment in the downtown, we should have [b]maximum[/b] parking requirements.
agree David; I watched the mtg and was pretty surprised at the underlying anti student rhetoric, especially from Ms Fry. If you move into a college town and especially so near to the college, you need to expect students and student behavior….I am also surprised no one but apparently me is concerned about Mr Kidd’s promises, etc. He does not have a good track record. Joe’s addition to the motion to make this a one exception was weak.
We’ll have to see whether Jim Kidd will build this well or cut corners, if he follows through with all of his promises. That is my only concern at this point.
Students should be able to buy houses with the help of their parents.
People who don’t like students, shouldn’t buy houses that back up to fraternities or next to the University, just like people who don’t like airplane noise shouldn’t buy a home near an airport.
But, students need to not be such slobs. I can’t believe that they would behave like this around their parents homes, so why do it here?
Actually, off and on the record, many are concerned about Mr. Kidd’s record. The last thing the Mayor did from the dais before calling the vote and immediately after Kidd promised not to disappoint the council was remind him that the Mayor could call for reconsideration if Kidd failed to get the city the promised documents when Kidd’s attorney returned from vacation.
“BTW: We should not have minimum parking requirements for redevelopment in the downtown, we should have maximum parking requirements.”
What a dramatic proposal. But, why is downtown different than West Davis or another part of town? A car-free, plastic-bag-free, firewood-free Davis–what a concept.
The problem, of course, is that parking space minimums serve an important purpose. A maximum would have little or no effect on the number of cars, and just would increase emissions as more vehicles drive around fighting for street parking spots.
—
“i am perplexed by the notion that property owners would be allowed to discriminate against students.”
Not against students, but against people younger than seniors. Okay, with a proper permit. But, apparently difficult to carry out (and not too practical) next door to a university!
I think we’re all too distracted by how a few people (not surprisingly) were upset that this development might be not remain the senior housing that was proposed.
It seems that the real issues of public policy concern why such significant waivers should be issued with little justification offered, whether the developer’s history (and failure to submit required papers) bodes well for the finished development and what chance this building has to be compatible with the neighborhood and with other buildings to come.
It’s difficult to visualize how a wall of tall buildings along B Street will provide a “transition” from a neighborhood of single-story houses to a two-block, open city park and a number of imposing business buildings. But, those decisions were made back in 2007, and folks probable adjusted to the plans and standards only to find undesirable changes made on short notice Tuesday evening.
I’m curious: how many buildings in Davis exceed the height of this 50-foot-high structure? I get the impression that Mission Residence will have the distinction of being the tallest building in the city.
Mrak Hall must be the tallest. Its human nature.
Could be, but I’m asking about the tallest buildings in Davis, City of.
This situation is absurd. The City Council should be a mediator of conflicts, not an originator.
In a true representative governance, the power of a council member does not lie in the member himself, but in the instantaneous support of the people they represent. It is the responsibility of the council member to get themself in-sync with the people they represent. For every objection to a change, a city council member can always reference the population that agrees with the objection. This is the justification that they are indeed representatives of the people.
Any council member who do not have the proportional populace backing, or fail to get themselves in-sync are delinquent of they duty and are holding their titles in vain.
To answer some questions posted from a previous thread:
[b]Q: 1.[/b] At what level should citizen involvement be sought? Should citizens have the opportunity to, essentially, develop design and development guidelines for their neighborhoods? Which neighborhoods should have this right (only those well enough organized to request it?)
To get in-sync with the desires and needs of the citizen is the defining function of the city council. A city council cannot fulfill its duty without knowing what the citizens want, and what their plans are. Without knowing those, the city council cannot function to merge those individual goals and plans so that the dreams of the citizens can be fulfilled without conflicting one another. Knowing the plans of the citizens is not an optional duty (i.e. a nice to have) it is the fundamental piece of information for the city council to function.
[b]Q: 2.[/b] Should citizen input be advisory or have decision making force (deliberative or decisive)? Who should decide this? Shouldn’t it be clear to participants in community dialogue whether their voice is one or the other?
Citizen inputs are not advisory. They define the fundamental parameters that the city council (in fact, everyone in the community) try to accommodate. As representatives, the city council members exist to save people time (through hierarchical decision-making/divide-and-conquer). The outcome of a city council decision should not be different from the outcome of a civil all-community-member meeting with 100K people. It should simply be faster and more efficient. The council is not there to make drastic changes. The council is there to save people time making the decisions that they would have made giving enough time to meet together.
[b]Q: 3.[/b] Even if citizens have a decisive voice how long is the “decision” in force? How often should it be revisited?
There is no dogmatic expiration date for information. The council should simply get itself in-sync. At any sign that there is a gap, that the council’s and the people’s view do not match, the council must take the initiative to get itself in-sync. That is the duty of the council to get [b]itself[/b] in-sync. The people is the originator of information to build the community.
[b]Q: 4.[/b] What standards might be developed to which CC could appeal that would allow them to abrogate decisions made by citizens? (I am not talking about ballot initiatives here but rather things like guidance on design standards, for example, that get codified in guiding documents).
The quick answer is never. If the CC goes against the people the CC is not doing its job. There is no meaning in representative governance with the elected do not fulfill their duty to represent. The council is not there to ‘go against’ the people but to mediate conflicts among the people. If the council ever needs to ‘appeal’ the people, it logically dictates that the majority of the people (that the council represents) wants to appeal the people (itself). That is a logical contradiction.
* * *
The problem of the system is that the elected members are not sufficiently accountable for their decision. The threat of being not re-elected is insufficient and insignificant compared to the power they have. Without being legally bound to be accountable, when a person understands their responsibility ethically, they will realize that they are wielding more power than they can accountably handle. That is the underlying reason why a council member would take the initiative and seek to be in-sync with its citizens.
JS – One of the leading experts on parking in the world–Donald Shoup (see [i]The High Cost of Free Parking[/i]– would disagree with you re: parking minimums. Why only in the downtown? I would not limit it to downtown but any place where significant densification is planned. However, this won’t work unless said communities are well connected by bus and bike to the rest of town and have easy access to shopping (neighborhood shopping centers). Downtown Davis (as Mark West noted) is walkable, bikeable and close to shopping (and has several transit options for trips within Davis and beyond). Parking maximums are not designed to do away with cars but to manage space and not deform land use policies as parking minimums have in the past.
interesting post by edgar wai
Edgar’s posts are almost always interesting. Here too he brings up some very good points.
With that said, one needs to beware the “tyranny of the majority” syndrome, which may well be in evidence in this case when one drills down into the results of the B Street Visioning process an interesting reality is illuminated. Starting at the 3rd and B corner and working south on the west side of B you have the following FARs
2.0 FAR (corner architect’s office)
2.0 FAR (bungalow)
1.0 FAR (Kidd’s first bungalow)
1.0 FAR (Kidd’s second bungalow)
1.5 FAR (existing apartments)
2.0 FAR restaurant at corner of B and 2nd)
Then if you go back up B on the east side you have
2.0 FAR (bungalow)
2.0 FAR (bungalow)
1.5 FAR (existing apartments)
2.0 FAR (bungalow)
2.0 FAR (bungalow)
2.0 FAR (bungalow)
One has to wonder what it was about the two Kidd bungalow properties that supported a FAR that was half of the 2.0 FAR of 8 virtually identical properties on the block.
Is it an example of a “tyranny of the majority”?