Monday Morning Thoughts: More on Trackside and the Core Area Specific Plan

New Trackside schematic

Yesterday’s column argued that the city may need to update its Core Area Specific Plan (CASP) before examining the new Trackside development proposal.

It was pointed out that the current plan was adopted back in 1996 and states, “Maximum building height shall be reviewed as it applies to the building’s density and relationship to adjacent structures. This has typically been restricted to three stories in the Core Area.”

A resident from Old East Davis writes a letter, published in yesterday’s paper, that makes some valid points of concern about the Trackside project.

The letter writer points out, “I believe in responsible infill, adding much-needed dwelling units and alleviating our housing shortage. But Trackside is not a responsible project for a residential setting.”

He rightly notes that the original proposal for six stories was largely a non-starter.

He points out the guidelines clearly lay out “two to three stories.”

The letter writer notes that “they had to scale back and maybe cajole the city into allowing a four-story building.”  He argues that “the latest four-story giant is still out of compliance and is totally unresponsive to our concerns.”

To bolster the point, he notes that “this massive structure is not in the downtown core. It’s in a transition area designated as such, less than 100 feet from the smallest house in the area and many other single-story residential homes.”

As he pointed out, the Core Area Specific Plan section, “New Buildings in Residential Neighborhoods,” (page 84) states, “The single most important issue of infill development is one of compatibility, especially when considering larger developments. When new projects are developed adjacent to older single-family residences, concerns exist that the height and bulk of these infill projects do not have a negative impact on smaller scale buildings.”

The Core Area Specific Plan section on page 86 states, “Because infill projects are likely to be taller than one story, their height and bulk can impose on adjacent smaller scale buildings. The height of new buildings should consider setbacks at the second story.”

What the neighbors want is, “Scale it to the surroundings by following the specific plan and guidelines.”

And I think they have a legitimate point here – the problem is that the guidelines themselves are out of date for what we need to do as a community.  Twenty years ago it made perfect sense to put two- to three-story buildings in the core of town.  We didn’t have a housing crunch, we didn’t have Measure J/R preventing new development on the periphery.

As I stated yesterday in the column, a CASP will inform us what the downtown should look like into the future.  It will create a plan that fits the community’s vision of our downtown.  To me it doesn’t make much sense to put a two-story building right next to downtown.  To me it especially doesn’t make much sense to put a two-story building right next to downtown if we believe that downtown should develop up to five to six stories.

That’s why I think we need to fix the Core Area Specific Plan – first.

In conversations I have had about this, it has been pointed out to me that many have believed that we needed to do the CASP three or four years ago.  They expressed concern about how quickly the city could do such a plan.  They expressed concern that it would get bogged down in politics and the normal slow-growth/no-growth debate.

I don’t see any way around that.

As I have stated before – for me this is an issue about process.  I don’t know that Trackside is what this community needs.  That’s certainly a discussion we should have – probably at the council rather than Planning Commission level, but that is a discussion for another day.

The first order of business is not to do major planning in a piecemeal fashion – and that is what approving Trackside at this point in time would be.  Does it make sense to approve a four-story building east of the tracks if we keep the CASP at two to three stories?  Does it make sense to approve a two-story building when we are planning to go to five or six in the downtown?

I’d submit that neither of those scenarios makes a lot of sense.

I have already thrown one of my cards down.  I believe that two stories is a waste of space.  If we have limited land for new development then it is irresponsible to build a new two-story building.

The original proposal of six stories seemed like a non-starter, the neighbors demanded two stories and the developers dropped the proposal down to four stories.  The neighbors are still complaining.  Does that mean that three stories is the right answer?  That I don’t know.

What I do know is that these decisions should not be made in isolation from the bigger questions.  We don’t necessarily have to have a final and approved CASP in order to answer them.  Instead, we might be able to have preliminary discussions on what heights should look like, both in the core and in the transition zone, and plan according.

That will eliminate the patchwork nature of these developments and bring about some consistency into the future.

In the absence of a new plan, I think Trackside ends up vulnerable to the neighbors’ claims that it violates the CASP.  And if they go ahead with a plan independent of the new CASP, you risk creating a new project that doesn’t fit current land use policies.  Again, none of that makes sense.

The best solution is to create the guidelines, even preliminarily, and then fit the project to those guidelines.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

5 thoughts on “Monday Morning Thoughts: More on Trackside and the Core Area Specific Plan”

    1. Howard P


      Northerly end of the SP/UP ‘triangle’… don’t know its entire history, but as I recall was made of redwood, about 40-50 feet tall (at the top), and as I recall, may be associated with an old RR water well (perhaps going back to steam locomotives?).  Used at one time, much later, as a water pressure reservoir for the City (to serve downtown – makes sense, as one of the the original purposes of Davis’ incorporation was to provide a reliable fire protection system for the downtown).

      Got torn down due to concerns related to water quality and structural stability.  Early 1980’s.

      Redwood was used for many old water towers/water tanks… it ‘swelled’ nicely, minimizing leaks.

      Have been in town, off and on (mainly, ‘on’) since ’72.  Didn’t know it was there until I got invited to see the demolition… ‘heart’ redwood… wish I had  piece of it…

      If you’re really interested, could meet with you and show you onsite where I recall it being…

      1. Alan Miller

        I don’t think we are talking about the same water tower.  I certainly remember the railroad water tank inside the wye.  The one the developers have been showing was on the site of the industry on the Trackside site, and far pre-dated the early 70’s.  I have no direct evidence of its existence except what I’ve seen presented.

  1. Carson Wilcox

    We need to think of the message this sends to builders and business looking to invest in our town that after over a year of meetings, and $ studies, and meetings, and redesigns, and meetings, and $ studies, and costs… that we are going to just put the magical hold on a project until a new CASP can be done.  Remember the sac biz journal cover with mayor Davis… is Davis Anti Business?  just validation for that sentiment.


    Trackside is a good project.  Local investors.  It needs to be approved… want to spend 4 years diddling with the CASP… do it later.  it will just conflict with some other idiotic guideline doc the city has and we will be in the same boat again.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for