Vanguard Analysis: Enterprise Obscures Where It Should Shine A Light

The vote on Tuesday night on the B Street project was admittedly a bit confusing in its conception. However, the Davis Enterprise article made it more so, not less so.

The title of the article was "Project will get another chance."

In a technical sense, that may be true. Council by a 3-1 vote passed a motion that would allow the applicant Marie Ogrydziak to bring her project back without having to pay additional fees. However, the motion directed her to work with the neighbors (who were overwhelmingly against the current project) and change her plans. Under those conditions, she would have to bring the project back through the HMRC (Historic Resources Management Commission) and Planning Commission. If they approved the design changes, the project would actually never come before council. The only reason the project came before council to begin with was that the Planning Commission by a 5-2 vote rejected the project as not meeting project guidelines.

The Enterprise continues:

"On Tuesday night, the City Council decided that Ogrydziak could resubmit her proposal and the council will consider it again, without Greenwald's participation."

Here again, it is more than a bit misleading. First, technically speaking, the project does not have to go back to council. But let us suppose it does, is Councilmember Greenwald conflicted out?

That is far from clear. She did not participate on Tuesday night. That much we know. But there are two possibilities for her participating. First, council at somepoint is going to revisit the issue of conflict of interest. Staff will look at the current rules. Second, Sue Greenwald could be ruled not to have a conflict by virtue of the fact that her property value would not be impacted by the project.

The applicant tried to argue that everyone in that neighborhood would be impacted one way or another by the project. But realistically speaking, given the distance which is 470 from property line to property line and an excess of 500 from house to house, given the fact that there is no direct sight line, given the fact that they are not on the street, or as Councilmember Greenwald put it, it's a design review rather than a project review, it is difficult to sustain the applicants point.

Nonetheless, none of this has been determined at this point.

The Enterprise's synopsis of the motion comes about halfway through the article:

"The council could have upheld its November decision if it so chose, but instead it said it would consider a resubmittal of the project if Ogrydziak worked with the neighbors and changed her plans."

The council basically did uphold their November decision. However, in the spirit of Former Mayor Maynard Skinner's olive branch, they worked it a bit more positively, rather than outright rejecting the project, they asked that it come back again. But functionally it is really the same effect. Under the November ruling it would be delayed a year and she would have to come back with a new proposal. Under this ruling, she has to come back with a new proposal. It may not exactly take a year, but realistically she is not going to redesign the project and get community buy-in all that much faster than she would have. So the only real victory she wins is a fee waiver.

All of this is of course clear as mud. What is interesting as well is that Councilmember Souza's motion "directs" the applicant to work with the neighborhood for changes within the design. However, as we know from City Attorney Harriet Steiner's legal interpretation, direct doesn't mean required by law.

As Ms. Steiner told Mayor Pro Tem Saylor in response to a question about giving direction, Ms. Steiner informed the council they cannot give "enforceable direction, but you can state your thought on the matter."

On that point the council was clear as was Councilmember Souza:

"I'm going to be straight out, I'm going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we're putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I'm saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion."

He continued:

"I'll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it's a waste of time. I don't want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that's positive."

And that is really the final complaint with the Enterprise article, it did not capture adequately the tone of the decision by the council. The suggestion in the headline and parts of the article is that the applicant was successful. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the applicant did not leave Council Chambers with the belief that she had prevailed. If she believed she was going to be able to put forward the project as currently designed she was sorely mistaken.

However, that is not the impression that the article gives.

Part of the problem is that the Enterprise only gives the matter 415 words--which is itself a problem. A breakdown of word usage shows us why the tone is misleading however.

The first 121 words deals with background and Councilmember Greenwald's participation which was suggested to be inappropriate but not definitively determined as such during this meeting.

The next 57 words suggests that the council will reconsider it without Greenwald's participation and then that they could have upheld November's decision but chose not to.

It's only the next 105 words with actually deal with what Councilmember Souza, the drafter of the motion, said. This is the only portion that casts a negative light on the decision from the applicant's perspective.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor's procedural manuevering, which was rejected, gets almost as many words, 100, as Souza's motion which was adopted.

14 words go to:

"Ogrydziak's project is expected to be before the council again after she resubmits plans."

Which is actually not true as we've discussed.

And finally 18 words to:

"The council also agreed to discuss at a future meeting how other cities and organizations handle conflict-of-interest matters. "

Which is actually an important aspect of this in its own right because that's in part how Councilmember Greenwald's participation will be determines, IF the matter even comes back to council.

There are really two problems here. One is that this story is only assigned 415 words. You just cannot do an adequate job with that short a story on this complex an issue. That is certainly not the reporter's fault. One of the big advantages the Vanguard has is that there is no word limitation.

The second problem is that you need to adequately reflect the tone and functional outcome of the decision. In that sense this article fails. First with the headline which is technically accurate but completely misleading in tone. Second, with the construction of the article that buries in the middle and underrepresents the outcome. Basically 105 of the 415 words reflect the tone and tenor of the decision and it is placed in the middle and off the front page of the newspaper. That needs to go up front and needs to also be longer.

The bottom line is that a person reading only that article on this issue would not come away with an accurate sense of what actually happened on Tuesday night.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Councilmember Souza and the Council Put a Stop to a Rehearing on 233 B

As we reported on Saturday, the City Attorney Harriet Steiner suggested that she erred in her assessment that Councilmember Sue Greenwald was not conflicted out of a vote cast on November 4, 2008 against a redesign of the 233 B Street property. Therefore the city staff determined that the applicant could request a rehearing without going through the normal reconsideration process.

The council will meet at a later point to modify and correct conflict of interest policies. We have discussed this at length already.

Despite applicant Marie Ogrydziak and her chief advocate on the council, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor attempting to couch this in terms of procedural fairness, the vote really came down to whether or not a rehearing would change the outcome. Ms. Ogrydziak would argue that it would--that councilmember Sue Greenwald had a large affect on the vote and therefore it was only fair to rehear without prejudice.

Marie Ogrydziak read a statement before council. She explained the background of why she believed Councilmember Sue Greenwald's house was within 500 feet. She pointed out that the Councilmember had to recuse herself for a 2004 project at the same location.

"Sue Greenwald should have been recused from the November 4 votes for the 233 B St project. Her votes had two major effects. One was essential for the rejection of a motion to include green considerations in the project approval process. And the other was essential for the appeal of our planning commission vote."

She then snarkly suggested:

"Jokingly we considered plate tectonics as a possible explanation for why four years later Sue Greenwald's property was now more than 500 feet from the 233 B St property."

She then accused the city of engaging in a "creative approach" to "attempt to prove that no mistake was made because there is no conflict of interest."

She continued:

"We believe such an approach starts the city of Davis down a slippery slope."

Ms. Ogrydziak then suggests it might be possible to find a realtor who would finds no impact on Sue Greenwald's property value, but suggests that would be contrived.

Amazingly she then argues for recussal on the basis of Sue Greenwald disagreeing with her vision for B St and that neighborhood:

"For many years Sue Greenwald and a small group developed and advocated a vision for what she sees as her neighborhood including B St. Several of our proposals and our actions run counter to her vision. As a private citizen she spoke against our first project at the 2004 council meeting and twice against our current 233 B project at planning commission meetings this summer... We believe in many ways Sue Greenwald is too close to this project and that she should recuse herself as it seems impossible that she can be impartial on this matter."

She then appealed to the council on the basis of fairness:

"In reality this vote is not about the project but about fairness and support for sound city policy."

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor advocated for the staff recommendation:

"I think this is a procedural matter strictly, this is a matter of whether in due process and fairness the earlier hearing we had was proper."

Mayor Asmundson initially went along with the process believing that is what the council unanimously supported.

"To be fair we erred in terms of distance, regardless of whether there will be change, we need to rehear the item."

Don Saylor moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion with the friendly amendment that we "respectfully ask the applicant to work further with neighbors to further modify the design."

This was not acceptable to Mayor Pro Tem Saylor because "it prejudges the outcome of that conversation."

As a result Councilmember Heystek withdrew his second and Mayor Ruth Asmundson seconded the motion instead.

Katherine Hess suggested that if there was a different proposal submitted, it would be appropriate to send it back to the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission.

Councilmember Stephen Souza pushed for a substitute motion requesting the applicant work with the neighborhood for changes within the design that came forward and to take that through the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission. Councilmember Heystek seconded it.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor then said he would vote against this on procedural issues and suggested that the

"applicant would have a course of action against the city if they didn't allow a resubmittal with no fees."

City Attorney Harriet Steiner shot that suggestion down:

"I do not believe that the applicant has a legal cause of action against the city by reason of what happened and Sue's participation at the last meeting."

The council danced around for a bit, it appeared that no motion would gain more than two votes. Finally, Councilmember Stephen Souza put his foot down.

"I'm going to be straight out, I'm going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we're putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I'm saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion."

He continued:

"I'll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it's a waste of time. I don't want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that's positive."

Councilmember Souza's plea was so strong he pulled Mayor Asmundson with him and the council voted 3-1 to reject the rehearing with Councilmember Saylor dissenting.

Commentary

I had a problem with the way in which this issue came about. Let us forget for a moment the procedural mess that city staff and the city attorney made of this issue and let us focus for a moment on the applicant.

I will start out by saying on a technical level, I understand her plea for procedural fairness. The issue of whether or not Sue Greenwald was actually conflicted out has not been resolved satisfactorily however from my standpoint and I think the council has taken a good step in getting clarification on this. Based on that uncertainty, I think the council should have deferred the decision if they were inclined to grant a rehearing on that basis.

But frankly Councilmember Souza was right here--and quite forceful about it. The fact is that the reason he voted to abstain and kill the project in November remains just as relevant today. Ms. Ogrydziak in her letter seemed to assume that Councilmember Souza would continue to abstain. That ignores statements he made both before and after his initial vote. Namely that he didn't think this project was appropriate for that site.

More appallingly to me is the fact that Ms. Ogrydziak seems far more concerned about procedural fairness towards her project rather than the feelings of her neighbors. At that November 4, 2008 meeting, former Mayor Maynard Skinner presented a letter signed by all but one of the neighbors in opposition to the project. Mr. Skinner generously came back last night to offer to meet with the applicant to produce a more suitable project but was essentially rebuffed.

To me this entire appeal was a slap in the face to Ms. Ogrydziak's neighbors. How does it further the process of reconciliation if she attempts to essentially do an end-run around the initial decision without addressing a single neighbor's concern? That does not seem like a good faith gesture to me. In fact just the opposite. She was far more concerned about getting her process a new hearing that dealing and mitigating the concerns of those most affected by her project.

Fortunately, thanks to Councilmember Heystek's persistence and Councilmember Souza's forceful and needed bluntness, Mayor Asmundson recognized that any effort to rehear without major revisions to the project would be a waste of the council's time.

Sadly Councilmember Saylor was dogged in his advocacy for Ms. Ogrydziak's project. While at one point he suggested to her that the council had made it clear that they wanted changes, nevertheless, he voted in the end to waste the council's time with a rehearing that would change nothing. Moreover since the city would have waived applicant fees, the city would be eating money in addition to the time to resolve this issue.

At one point, Mr. Saylor suggested irresponsibly that the city might face a cause of action if they did not grant a rehearing--why would he bring this up in open session? If this was truly his concern, why would he not have discussed it with the City Attorney in advance? In fact, the City Attorney had already written in the staff report that she did not think the city was obliged for a rehearing and she was forced to reiterate this point in open council. This was tantamount to a not-so-subtle threat that was made by Ms. Ogrydziak and carried by Mr. Saylor.

In the end, the council acted responsibly by suggesting yet again that Ms. Ogrydziak needs to go back to the drawing board, redesign the project, and for crying out loud, work with the neighbors.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Councilmember Greenwald Conflicted Out Retroactively

Will Council have to revisit November Vote on B Street Project Based on FIVE Feet?

On November 5, the City Council heard an appeal of an application to develop four detached residences on the parcel at 233 B Street. The Planning Commission back in July denied the applications by a 5-2 vote based on inconsistencies with the Design Guidelines. All but one neighbor strongly opposed the design modification. Simply put it was a very innovative design and project that did not belong in the middle of an existing neighborhood.

The city council by a strange 2-2-1 vote where Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek opposed the appeal and Councilmember Stephen Souza abstained. That vote gave the applicant, Maria Ogrydziak one year to work with her neighbors to come up with a more suitable project for that location. Following abstention, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy and provoked an angry exchange with his colleague and frequent ally on the council. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

"I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment."

Mr. Saylor responded:

"So you deny the project by not doing either."

That was clearly the intention of Mr. Souza's vote. What has now happened is that instead of working with her neighbors, Ms. Ogrydziak is working with Mayor Pro Tem Saylor to find a backdoor around the original vote.

Staff report attaches a January 4 letter from Ms. Ogrydziak to City Manager Bill Emlen.



In it she claims that they check and found that Councilmember Greenwald's property was 470 feet from the project and therefore she should be conflicted out.

"If Sue Greenwald had been recused, we would not have lost various votes (with Stephen's abstentions), and the project would still be alive. Therefore, I am requesting a re-consideration for the 233 B Street Project, without added City of Davis or Planning Department fees."

During that meeting, there was considerable question as to whether Councilmember Greenwald could vote on the project. As the staff report reads:

"ownership of property within 500 feet of a proposed development creates a rebuttal presumption of a conflict of interest for a public official."

In other words, anyone within 500 feet of a property is conflicted out from participating.

"Prior to the meeting, Councilmember Greenwald was advised that she did not own property within 500 feet of 233 B Street, and therefore did not have a conflict."

In fact, Councilmember Greenwald did not stop there, twice during the meeting prior to participation she specifically asked City Attorney Harriet Steiner if she had a conflict and was twice told that she did not. Based on that advice, she participated in the vote and discussion of this matter.

Now, nearly three months later, the city attorney is claiming there was an error and she is conflicted.

"This advice was incorrect, however, due to a drafting error in preparing the maps."

I am as concerned about process and conflicts of interest as anyone, perhaps more so. However, I have been told that she is 495 feet from the property. So somehow if she is 495 from the property she is conflicted out, but can vote if she is 500 feet or 501 feet. From a practical standpoint that does not make a lot of sense.

But just because she lives within 500 feet, does not necessarily mean she is conflicted out. She can show that she would not stand to benefit from the proposed development or lack thereof.

Here again we get into utter illogical advice from the City Attorney.

"It is possible that Councilmember Greenwald will seek a determination from a real estate professional, such as an appraiser or broker, that, notwithstanding the fact that her property is within 500 feet of the proposed development, the proposed development will have no impact on her property. If she obtains such an opinion, then she would not have a conflict on this matter. At this time, we do not know if Councilmember Greenwald will seek this further opinion."

This makes even less sense than ruling her conflicted out based on five feet. Councilmember Greenwald was basically told to hire a real estate agent to assess the impact of her property which is on Rice Lane, a side street nowhere in the vicinity of 233 B Street. The likelihood of an impact is extraordinarily remote. And yet, by asking her to obtain the opinion, you risk having an interested party making a ruling rather than the city hiring an expert who is impartial do the assessment. Talk about conflict of interest. Who would find such an expert's view compelling under those circumstances.

Apparently the mere fact of her participation does not negate the action taken by the Council in November.

"Councilmember Greenwald’s participation does not negate the action that was taken by the Council in November. The denial stands. The applicant has asked that the matter be reconsidered to allow a different vote on the applications.

Staff and the City Attorney agree that it is fair to provide the applicant with a new hearing."

Really fair to whom? To the neighbors? To the taxpayers of Davis? To the voters of Davis? To the process of democracy?

Fortunately, there is no guarantee that there will be three votes to have a new hearing. Mr. Souza specifically voted, albeit by abstention, to delay the project because he felt it ill-suited for the neighborhood. It seems unlikely he would change his mind, especially with this procedural nightmare.

To make matters worse, this item was place on CONSENT AGENDA, where it could have easily be hidden from the public and perhaps the council.

"Staff recommends the following approach:

- The applicant to re-submit applications for the project presented to the Council in
November;
- The City to waive processing fees;
- The applications to be scheduled before the Council expeditiously, with no further
Planning Commission review;
- Minimal additional staff work or analysis, but reliance on the previous staff report."

This entire situation is appalling. Ms. Ogrydziak's project was strongly and vociferously opposed by every neighbor except for one. The planning commission denied it. The city council by a strange vote denied it. And instead of coming back and working with her neighbors, she has tried an end-run around the process seizing on an error and a technicality to try to invalidate the vote of one of the councilmembers.

To make matters worse, the city attorney, city manager, and city staff have bought into this.

All of this based on 5 feet (or even 30 feet as the applicant claims)? There have been some baffling things I have seen this city do, this one may take the cake. She presumes Councilmember Souza will still abstain--I think that is rather presumptuous of her given his expressed desire at that meeting and his likely reaction to this kind of maneuver. The Vanguard certainly hopes Mr. Souza does the right thing here and we have faith that he will.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Power Shift on the Council: Souza Emerges As Power Center

The 2008 Elections saw Councilmember Don Saylor win the most votes to ascend to the position of Mayor Pro Tem, Davis' version of the mayor-in-waiting as Mr. Saylor will take over as Mayor in 2010. However, since the new session began, we have instead seen Don Saylor increasingly marginalized on the council. Emerging as the most powerful member of the council was Stephen Souza, who has acted as the swing vote on numerous key contented votes since September 8.

It is a small sample to be sure, just 12 contested votes (i.e. non-unanimous votes), but the pattern is clear. Souza has shaped the council's agenda voting with the majority on 11 of the 12 votes. Not only that, but he has played the role of kingmaker, shaping the direction of the policy. It is not only the number of votes, but the importance of the votes whether it has been on living wage, the Ogrydziak project, Cannery Park, and last week on both J Street and Hunt-Boyer.

Meanwhile it is top-vote getter Don Saylor who have been increasingly marginalized on the council as the vote of extremity, voting on the losing side of contested votes 8 of the 12 times. Mr. Saylor has been the lone dissenter on three of the votes including the Cannery Park, the letter on the Grand Jury Report, and the New Harmony CEQA. In addition, the Mayor Pro Tem has voted with Mayor Ruth Asmundson on the losing end of a 3-2 vote five times. The Mayor herself has been on the short-end of the vote on six votes.

By comparison, Lamar Heystek has found himself on the short-end of two votes, Councilmember Sue Greenwald has been on the losing end of just one vote.

These numbers alone understate the impact of Stephen Souza on the council. For one thing, these are just final votes. A good example is on the Cannery Park proposal. Councilmember Sue Greenwald made a motion to keep the current zoning in place and deny Lewis Planned Communities' application to change the zoning. That vote failed by a 3-2 vote. However, Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek would then join Mayor Asmundson and Stephen Souza in supporting City Manager Bill Emlen's recommendation to pursue an equal weight EIR.

In another example just this week, Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor's center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor's center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.

Souza was also the deciding vote on the living wage vote.

Perhaps the most interesting vote was on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Marie Ogryziak's project on B Street. Councilmember Souza abstained from taking a position in that vote. His abstention meant that the project would be denied for at least a year. After that vote there was a public exchange between Souza and Saylor.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

"I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment."

Mr. Saylor responded:

"So you deny the project by not doing either."

What is clear here is that Councilmember Stephen Souza now occupies the middle ground on the council on most contested votes. His is the swing vote. But for the most part, they are centrist votes. On both the Cannery vote and the Hunt-Boyer vote, he opposed to more progressive position of Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek and instead forged out his own compromise position.

But there is a notable point along those lines. On both of those votes (these are prime examples), Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek did not get their preferred option. In both cases however they were willing to compromise and work with Councilmember Souza to get a project or an outcome that was closer to their preferred option than the alternative. In that sense both Greenwald and Heystek have been very strategic in their votes and willing to compromise to get things accomplished. As a result, both Greenwald and Heystek have been in the majority on contested votes 11 and 10 times respectively.

The same cannot be said for Mayor Pro Tem Saylor who has refused to compromise and move from his core position in order to get things done. Despite his rhetoric of moderation, his actions have placed him on the most extreme end of the council this term.

The main caveat to this pattern is that it is a very short period of time, since September 8, 2008 and only on a few votes, 12. But it seems, that a new pattern is emerging on the council and the sharp dividing lines that had existed previously are beginning to breakdown. This is to the credit not only of Councilmember Souza but also Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald who have been willing to work with Mr. Souza to get things done.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Neighborhood Guidelines Trump Green on B-Street Project

Score one for the neighbors. The result happened over a week ago, and we are just discussing it now, but the principles put into place still apply.

First of all, let us commend Maria Ogrydziak for designing a fabulously innovative and green structure with flat tops on her roof to support green plants. It was an innovative proposal, one of the greenest ever. There was just one unfortunate part of the proposal, it just did not fit into an existing neighborhood. If this were a new neighborhood, a new development, a lot of the naysayers would have been cheering her on.

The problem is that the project just does not fit into into an existing neighborhood. It was rejected by both the Planning Commission and the Historical Resources Management Commission. Ms. Ogrydziak had one more option and that was appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Davis City Council.

Late into the night the meeting went. The neighbors were dead set against this. Maynard Skinner presented a petition to the council signed by 42 other residents. He demonstrated to the council that other infill and densification projects work. He then went on to talk about Davis having its own "Jake the Plumber" and "Mike the Carpenter" (Mike Corbett). One project in particular that ought to be a model was a project on Russell Blvd. that put at least ten units onto a lot that used to have a single unit. But from the street, you would never know that it is a densification project because the project blends so well into the existing neighborhood and design guidelines.

Maynard Skinner pointed out that one of the guidelines is to preserve and protect the neighborhood character. This project is inconsistent with design guidelines, according to Mr. Skinner.

As many residents indicated, they are not opposed to any project there. It followed the guidelines and the neighbors have no problem. Indeed there was a project on B Street that was approved without opposition. This is different. And it is a simply an issue of location rather than the project.

As Councilmember Lamar Heystek put it:

"I think this is a terrific project, and I hope it gets replicated in the dozens. But we simply cannot have design guidelines that we don't ever anticipate applying."

But even with the project guidelines set as they were and even with the strong neighborhood objections--42 neighbors objecting to the project--this project still had a good chance of being approved.

For Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor:

"The design guidelines are not rules. They really are in need of balance with other considerations."

However, none of the other councilmembers saw it that way and Mr. Saylor's motion died for lack of a second.

Here is where things got really interesting.

Councilmember Heystek moved that the council uphold the decision of the planning council to deny the project. Councilmember Sue Greenwald seconded the motion.

Now remember, Sue Greenwald could not vote on the original Third and B project because she lived within five hundred feet and was conflicted out. However, at that time, it was suggested she would be able to vote on some of the projects that came forth within the area that were outside of this limit. The city attorney ruled earlier in the day, that the project at 233 B Street was outside of the five hundred foot limit.

Mayor Ruth Asmundson suggested a substitute where they would table the proposal by Ogrydziak and take another look at the design guidelines to make them more flexible. However, City Attorney Harriet Steiner determined that by law the council could not table this motion or the project would be tabled for an entire year.

This put the substitute motion by the Mayor off the table again after it had originally passed three to two.

The motion was evenly divided. And Stephen Souza held the swing position and he abstained. Because the Planning Commission already denied the project, the council’s tie vote meant the planning commission’s decision would stand and the project was killed for an entire year.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

"I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment."

Mr. Saylor responded:

"So you deny the project by not doing either."

Somehow, someway, the council made the right decision with regard to this project. Why put in design-guidelines if they are not to serve as exactly that--guidelines which must be adhered to. Mayor Pro Tem Saylor was willing to scrap those. But if we go back to the original debate over the Third and B project, we will remember that literally hours were spent haggling over exactly those guidelines. To summarily scrap them is disrespectful to the previous process. If those guidelines carry no merit, then why take time to lay them out in such a clear manner.

Second point that must be raised here again is neighborhood concern. 42 residents opposed this project. The neighborhood was heavily against this project. How do you go forward with a project in a neighborhood that the neighbors are against? About this time, the charge of NIMBYISM is thrown out. It's a red herring. The neighbors have the right to protect the character of their neighborhood. It is the height of arrogance to decide that one knows better than the neighbors what does or does not fit. Once the design guidelines are put in place, that acts as the reasonably agreed limitations of the project. What a lot of people in this community seem to fail to understand is that people sink their life's savings into their homes. Most people are not investors with multiple properties, they have one home and they have an obligation to protect that investment and that asset. Moreover they should have the right to not have a project placed into their community that sticks out like an eyesore.

The big lesson here that people ought to take away is that a great project in one location is a horrible project in another location. I want green and sustainable development in this community - I encourage this kind of innovation - but, it has to fit in with the current character and design guidelines. This project did not. It should be located in a new neighborhood and many of the same people opposing this project would have been leading the way. This was simply not the place to locate it. The council was narrowly divided but ultimately did the right thing.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: Third and B Project On Hold For Now

I have to say up front, I think the council approved project in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the university between B and A Streets is one of the worst conceived ideas. As I have stated in the past, that neighborhood is one of my very favorite neighborhoods in the city of Davs--conveying the feel of a college town as few other areas in Davis do.

At the time of the vote, a good number of residents in the neighborhood opposed such a re-zoning believing that the character of their neighborhood would be altered by a large number of tall buildings.

However, the city council did pass the zoning change to allow the development of a series of townhouses and condominiums in this neighborhood that transitions between the university and downtown.

The first proposal under this new zoning ordinance went before the Davis Planning Commission on Wednesday evening.

This particular proposal called for the building of four, three-story buildings. It was radical enough even for the new zoning ordinance that the City planning department recommended that the planning commission deny the proposal based on its lack of conformity with the design guidelines set for the area.

The city's Historical Resources Management Commission in early June discussed the project and argued that the project did not meet specified guidelines of the area.

At the meeting on Wednesday, Mike Webb, the city's principal planner suggested that it was not necessary that the new buildings replicate the bungalow style of the existing buildings in the neighborhood. However, he also believed that this was too sharp a departure from the current neighborhood and that they would stand out. He seemed to prefer a building type that fit in while it did not regulate.

The applicant, Davis architect Marie Ogrydziak, has a choice as to how to remedy this situation. The planning commission was somewhat divided as to whether or not to allow the project to go forward. But in the end, they asked Ms. Ogrydziak to make various design changes to the project in hopes that it better meet the guidelines that were set forth by the city in cooperation with the neighborhood. The other alternative would have been for the applicant to appeal to the city and see what the city council says.

For her part, Ms. Ogrydziak seemed willing to try to make difficult changes to the roofline and trying to make it work.

The Vanguard believes that this was probably the wrong area of town to attempt this kind of remodel. Having a string of three story buildings (and there were proposals last year of up to four stories or higher) on the western edge of Central Park makes little sense.

The character of the western side of the core is too valuable to tear down the historic bungalows and put up a bunch of condominiums and townhouses. We understand the desire by the council to transition this neighborhood from the university to the downtown. One suggestion we would have would be adaptive reuse of the bungalows on B St on the western edge of the park from rental units housing students to shops and restaurants that could attract shoppers and restaurant-goers from the neighborhood as well as the rest of town. This was particularly effective for instance on the eastern edge of the park with places such as Burgers and Brew.

It is not that we oppose placing smaller and taller units around the core. It is that this does not seem the place to do it. On the eastern side of downtown and especially the PG&E yard it seems almost ideal in that you will not be destroying the existing character of the neighborhood just to the east of campus, you will not create a more boxed in feeling in the park, and yet you can achieve your goal of more housing and more housing close to the core.

That said, it is obvious that the current council majority wants to move forward with this project. As such, it is best that it as closely conforms to existing feel and design as possible. Good design and construction can produce the desired changes with a much lesser degree of alteration and intrusion as the current design produces. It is that type of compromise work that would best accomplish this goal. We look forward to seeing what a revised design would entail.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: On Historic Resources, Student Housing, and Core Area Planning

Last night during the course of the Davis City Council-Historic Resources Management Commission meeting a very interesting discussion occurred with regards to core business development and adaptive re-use.

One of the key points that was raised was whether mixed-use buildings were appropriate in core areas or whether there should be retail or businesses on the second floor buildings.

The discussion quickly turned to whether there should be student apartments on the second floor of buildings in the core area.

This got me thinking that students often do not participate in land use discussions because they assume that their time horizon is too short to care a great deal about where and how the city should develop. And yet in many ways, students are heavily impacted by these sorts of land use decisions.

One thing that continues to trouble me is the Third and B visioning project which will take a lot of mixed-use housing. Some of the housing is mixed-use, which is owner-occupied, and some are student rentals that will be converted into high rise (third and fourth story) condominiums. That means largely pushing students out of a swath of area on the east side of campus which abuts the transition zone to the core area.

At the same time some of the more vibrant parts of the core area are on the west side of the core with Burgers and Brew, Crepeville, Ciocolat, Delta of Venus, all being essentially student catering businesses and all of them being essentially in the middle of student housing. And yet, once the project goes through, that will all change.

Where should a city like Davis put its student population? And where will the future student populations go?

One area that is planned right now is of course West Village. But if that is where we are relying on growth for the student and faculty population, we need to understand that there is limited retail in walking distance of that development. And while biking and busing is always an option, we are essentially precluding students from walking to downtown by putting the development on the west side of campus, out of normal walking distance from the core.

The discussion last night also moved beyond these issues to a more general discussion about the balance between historic preservation and commercial development. While certain members of the commission made strong arguments that we need to heed the call of business and particular retail business in our planning and design, to me and several others it remains far from clear that an adaptive re-use model cannot be quite successful. Some of the more interesting businesses have developed in what were essentially homes that have been remodeled.

Chief examples of that are Burgers and Brew and Ciocolat. In many ways, adaptive reuse I think is under utilized. Bistro 33 provides a thriving example of proper reuse of an historic building to a more modern need without destruction of the historic character.

Final point, really a good one that Lamar Heystek raised and I see occurring around town, not just with regard to historic management, and that is almost planned degradation of resources as a means to force new construction.

I have really two examples of that. First was the Anderson Bank Building that Jim Kidd has really allowed to degrade in terms of appearance and upkeep. And he tried to really use that to argue that we need to allow him to lower the bank building windows.

The other example is what has happened with West Lake Shopping center. There the owner allowed the proper to degrade and then argued that it wasn't viable for grocery stores to move in and tried subsequently to get a rezone. Well part of the problem there, is that he failed to keep the property in prime condition, so no wonder he had trouble attracting new business. People working in that particular building have told me of amazing stories of neglect.

In my opinion, that type of neglect should not be rewarded by approval of zoning changes. We need to insure that business and property owners do not simply allow their building to degrade and attempt to use that as a reason to remodel or demolish.

I understand that we don't want to paralyze the core with out of character buildings, but at the same time a bit of ingenuity can give us a good business utilizing existing buildings.

These are of course good discussions to continue having into the future. I certainly do not see historic preservation and commerce, and preservation and economic development as zero sum game.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Tearing Down our City's Character

It took me a long time to realize why the vote on Third and B Street "Visioning" Project upset me so much. After all, there has been a long string of votes, most of them these days 3-2, that have upset me from this city council led by Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Ruth Asmundson. In fact, the only time I can remember prevailing on a contested vote was with the Anderson Bank Building, when Stephen Souza uncharacteristically switched sides. Other than that, it has been a loss after devastating loss. But this one really hurt in a way a lot of the others have not. This one as they say, was personal and unfortunately I've felt personal before from this council. But at least the last time it felt personal, I understand fully why it felt personal. This one was more elusive.

Then as I was driving past the neighborhood, I realized what was eating at me. This was my neighborhood. For many years, I spent more time in that neighborhood than I did where I actually lived. Everyday I would walk from either Central Park or Old North down to Third Street and from there to the Social Sciences and Humanities Building. I'd walk by Ciocolat, Navin's, Roma, etc. I'd eat lunch at Rajas one of my favorite restaurants in Davis. I can see that journey in my head all the time, because I walked through it several times a day, almost everyday, for years.

And these days I talk to a lot of people and hear from a lot of people on various things in Davis. Honestly, I have not met a single person who does not have a financial stake in either the neighborhood or in the business community that supports this. I've even heard from people who do not follow Davis politics who start shaking their heads and asked a series of questions as to why the promoters would want to do this. Nobody gets this other than the council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza, a few developers, and a few merchants. And I mean nobody.

This is a neighborhood that few live in, but most know and most like if not love. I think the comment made on the night of the council sticks with me most--why are we rewarding people for the failure to take care of their property? Because when you walk through the neighborhood you see some very nice old homes that have simply not been cared for. It's not the students' fault who reside in these homes. It is the fault of the absentee homeowners. And yet now they can go tear them down and rebuild and make a nice profit because the city council majority of Ruth Asmundson, Don Saylor and Stephen Souza wanted to "improve" the area.

There are lots of little things about this that bother me as well. Maria Ogrydziak is President of the DDBA and a property owner in the neighborhood. She was quoted in the Davis Enterprise as complaining that the 38 foot height restriction for her building was too restrictive.

Maria Ogrydziak said she would like to build either retail and offices or a townhouse project, depending on the zoning the council approves for her properties.

For her, the 38-foot height limit is restrictive, she said.

“With something like this, I think it’s important to be creative and when you’re so stringent about the height, you’re going to end up with that apartment building down the block from me,” she said. “It’s just like a pancake, one layer right on top of another, maxing out the height. If you want to have interesting roof lines, it completely disallows that, and it makes the parking very difficult to design underneath.”

Fortunately for Ms. Ogrydziak, her friends on the council specifically allowed her to build to 45 feet. And when some objected to the unseemliness of it, Asmundson was inclined to make all of them 45 feet in height.

How tall is 45 feet? 45 feet in comparable in height to the Chen Building. That's how we want that neighborhood to look with a bunch of 45 feet buildings. If you want to know how that might look, walk up to G and Fifth and look at the Roe Building that is under construction and decide if that's the vision that you have for Davis' residential and historical neighborhoods.

It's not my vision. I've grown tired of defending my Davis against this kind of encroachment. I've grown tired of people who want to completely remake the image and character of Davis. I believe most people in Davis would like to preserve that character. And frankly I have been tired of being accused of opposing all changes to Davis. I'm not. Give me something that I can support and I will, but this is not it. I think there are great things we can do in Davis and great changes that we can make while preserving the character of key places in Davis. But not here, and not this way. I think there are densifications even in this neighborhood I would support, but not three and four story condos, not tearing down these beautiful if falling apart bungalows.

One last point to make about the vote on Tuesday--the meeting went until 1:45 a.m. Now if you watched the meeting, you saw a series of questions from council to staff that really should not have been asked in public. I mean some of the questions asked were just baffling. And yet they went on and on for hours.

Now I point this out because Mayor Greenwald was not presiding over this meeting. Furthermore, Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson presided over this meeting. Asmundson complained a month or two ago that Mayor Greenwald did not know how to run a meeting, therefore that was the reason that the council meetings went so long. Well anyone who painfully stayed up and watched this council meeting will realize that Asmundson has no clue how to run a meeting or move it on. It was absurd. There has to be some kind of focus and some kind of structure to meetings, and this one just went on and on long past the time it should have stopped.

Unlike the meeting where Asmundson complained about Greenwald, this one was mostly on Asmundson. Because not only did she fail to take control of it, she contributed to its length by asking a series of questions that she should have asked staff in private. So should Councilmember Souza. Souza can at least be excused for asking questions that made no sense as he was suffering an allergic reaction to a wasp sting and was struggling along. Asmundson has no such excuse.

In all, it was a disappointing night and a very disappointing performance from council. The public got up and spoke and it was very clear that the council majority was paying little attention to them. They were too busy writing notes about what they were going to say in their concluding comments. If there is one thing that irritates me, it is when councilmembers have gone through a long process with the public and then they read their closing statements. Taking a note or two to remember points you want to raise is one thing, sitting and reading them is insulting to the public and it gives members of the public the impression that the elected official has no interest in public input. If you have your mind made up going in, at least fake it better.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Approves Zoning Change to Allow Densification at Third and B

The Davis City Council decided early this morning by a 3-1 vote to approve zoning changes to allow densification at Third and B with Councilmember Lamar Heystek the sole dissenter and with Mayor Sue Greenwald conflicted out of the process due to her residence within the neighborhood in question. This vote occurred despite numerous concerns raised by neighbors and community members about changing the character of the neighborhood and the core of downtown. There were also a number of concerns raised about parking and traffic. Finally a number of people have argued that Davis lacks much in the way of historic buildings and resources. Those historic buildings that have remained beyond the purging in the 1960s and 1970s are in need of protection.

There were many crucial points of opposition that were aptly raised by various members of the public. Many people also came and spoke in favor of the project.

John Hall, a neighbor who collected around 20 petitions, called the original proposal "OTT" or "over the top." He told the council that this was densification, not infill and implored them to scale back the project. They had come forward with a number of proposals, some of which ended up being integrated into the project, some of which were not.

Rand Herbert, chair of the historic resources commission, referred to a 4-0-3 vote by his commission to use the current design guidelines.

"The HMRC is not against densification, only how it would impact historic resources."

Mike Syvanen, husband of Mayor Greenwald, illustrated the impact that a 38-45 foot building height would have on the character of the neighborhood. He did not reject the notion of redevelopment or even densification of the area outright, but simply suggested that this is the wrong approach.

"I think this plan should be just rejected and sent back to planning so that we can come up with something that is consistent with the character of this residential neighborhood."

Allan Miller from the Old East Davis Neighborhood Association was disturbed by this process. He brought up a very crucial point:

"I continue to be amazed that either intentional or careless neglect is rewarded on property owners who want to redevelop. On this wall we have five scenes, one is gone, it is the one in the middle, the Aggie Hotel, which went through criminal neglect, and then that was given as an excuse as to why redevelopment had to occur."

Mr. Miller's point was a very strong one as we saw a few weeks back with the Anderson Bank Building, another old, historic building that is in need of upkeep and renovation. The appearance of the Bank Building was one of the reasons that the owner asked for changes in the window design. The appearance of the older bungalows in the current neighborhood are among the expressed reasons why some of the owners asked for zoning changes to enable densification and redevelopment in this project and in this neighborhood. Perhaps the council ought to require upkeep as a condition to even consider allowing for zoning change and redevelopment. Because otherwise as both Mr. Miller said, and Councilmember Heystek would later state, we would simply be rewarding people who are failing to take care of their property.

Teta Olna provided some of the most emotional public comments of the evening. She had bought her lot on University as an R2 lot. She was told by city leaders that she lived in an historic neighborhood and was asked to save it. "If you take your R2 property and turn it into an R1 property, we promise you that while this general plan is in effect, this will stay a residential type of neighborhood." And she convinced her neighbor to do the same thing, which probably reduced her property value by $100,000. They accepted a denser neighborhood back in 1990.

"This is just how the council is treating people in the historic neighborhood. Me, who I wanted to save an historic neighborhood, I gave up a lot. I said no I'm not going to develop, I'm not going to do the R2, I'm going to the R1. I'm going to stay here, I'm going to live here. And I put all my nest egg in there. And now I'm left holding the bag, now I'm the fool. So I'm really sorry that this is happening and I feel very unfairly treated. I feel there is a double-standard on this city council. There's a double-standard of protecting the rich peripheral neighborhoods, quality of life issues, ignoring those of us in the historic core that have really given a lot to this city."

Sue Greenwald spoke as a private citizen and a resident of the neighborhood.

"I thought that we had a shared vision, of careful sensitive infill that preserves the historic nature of our most visible and defining historic neighborhoods. We have very little of our historic flavor left. When people visit Davis, or when they walk from campus to downtown, they are always commenting to me that they are amazed that we managed to retain a little history and a little charm. We had a vision that was a really wise vision, it was a vision that we would densify the commercial core with taller buildings, we would scale it down somewhat in the mixed use areas of C Street and D Street, and transition it to leave a village ambiance in the little neighborhood between B Street and campus. It's a very small neighborhood. That vision is exemplified in the existing zoning. Staff has underestimated the number of units that can be built under the existing zoning in this neighborhood and actually overestimated the number that can be built under the proposed zoning."

Some have suggested that opposition to this project is tantamount to opposition to all densification or infill development. I do not believe that this is true at all and I do not think this is true of my viewpoint. Part of the reason for that perception is that the Vanguard tends to focus on controversies rather than points of agreement. However, I would tend to support those who last night suggested that there are better locations for densification and infill.

There were two good alternative proposals put on the table last night by members of the public. First, retired professor Dennis Dingemanns suggested densification on the Old North Davis spot where the school district currently has its main offices but from which the district wants to move and sell their property for future development. Greenwald suggested that there are proper places for infill such as the 25 acre PG&E parcel at 5th and L. She also mentioned other underutilized sites around downtown. "Infill at sites like this will not destroy historic neighborhood." Moreover, infill at these sites can be incorporated into the existing infrastructure rather than imposed upon it. Finally, infill at these locations can be made to reinforce rather than alter the existing character of the community and the neighborhood.

Councilmember Heystek questioned the scope of the EIR, the fact that it did not, in his opinion, test the impact on adjacent areas. Staff disagreed with that assessment, as did his colleagues, who ended up voting 3-1 to approve the EIR. This limited EIR remains a concern to me as well, I do not think it adequately examined the impact of traffic and parking on adjacent areas. The Old North Neighborhood Association remains concerned about their generous parking arrangement, whereby they allow non-residents large use of their parking spots without time limitations. Will this new development force more parking into that neighborhood? Souza speculated on a new parking structure that would ease that problem, but in the meantime, I think that is concern.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek after midnight weighed in on why he ended up opposing this project.

"I believe that this process is a referendum on our current development process. I believe there is something to be said about densification through demolition in this particular neighborhood, where the council has opposed densification in other areas of this town, specifically on the peripheral areas near our city limits. I don't want to unjustly punish this neighborhood for the fact that this current council for whatever reason refuses to accept higher density in other areas of town... Just as the rich or the low density neighborhoods, the members of those neighborhoods claim, that they are entitle to preservation of the integrity of their neighborhood, I believe that those who live in and near the project are similarly entitled to some semblance of neighborhood integrity. And that is why I think it would be unfair not to push the envelope in other areas of town of low density, and yet cram what seems to be high density, what is high density, into this neighborhood."

Councilmember Heystek continued by criticizing the level of neglect of some of the property in this neighborhood.

"I walked through the alleys with Sara, I've walked through the alleys with neighbors, I've walked through the alleys myself, and there seems to be and must be admitted to, if we're going to be honest here, there is some element of neglect on those parcels, on the lots, that abut the alley facing east on B street. Who bears the burden of the responsibility of the lots, of the fact that a lot of the lots have not been very well maintained, it is very popular to say that it's the tenants, it's the student renters who are running this neighborhood down, I'm not saying the renters have been angels, because I've walked down this street on picnic, I've walked down the street on weekends, but we must be honest and say that the owners of these lots also bear responsibility. I don't want to say that if we cannot achieve some semblance of what we want to accomplish in that neighborhood because of the activities of the occupants there, the renters in this case, then that means we have to cover, we've got to demolish, and we've got to build on top of it. Because I'm not willing to reward that. If you run your properties down enough... But also the property owners bear responsibility."

In the end, the council majority supported this project as part of what they consider their vision of the core. They spoke in terms of a transition between the university and the core downtown area. They spoke in terms of commercial development in that transition in order to connect the university with the core areas of town.

And in the end, I simply do not share that vision of the council majority of Councilmembers Saylor, Souza, and Asmundson. I share a very different vision of this city and especially that neighborhood.

There were consistent and persistent concerns about parking and traffic in that part of town. There is legitimate concern about such dense residential development along B Street which serves as a main artery for traffic heading from Fifth Street to downtown and I-80. Large amounts of vehicles pulling out from driveways will inherently disrupt the flow of traffic. Nevertheless, both traffic and parking while legitimate concerns, can be mitigated through good planning. In the end, neither of these were reasons to reject the project in my opinion--though they may be valid reasons for further planning and altering the project.

For me, the reason for opposing this project is based not on principles of growth, but rather the ideal of what our city should look like. I have mentioned before that one of the chief reasons I originally moved to this city to go to graduate school was that this neighborhood and this mix of residential development and commercial development along Third Street drew me to Davis. It has the feel of the college town. And it is precisely because the houses and businesses are older. It is precisely because the businesses seem to seemlessly flow out of the neighboring homes. It is precisely because there is little to distinguish a business like Navines or Ciocolat from the adjacent homes. This is what a college town should feel like.

And when I think of them razing some of these homes and these businesses to build bigger, taller, and more dense units, it really cuts to the core of what I believe our community should be. That neighborhood is a transition from the university to the city. It houses old time residents and students alike. There are faculty members and businesses. The students frequent the businesses in heavy doses during the week. And it has the feel of a real college town with people bustling about, riding their bikes on their way to classes or sitting down and having coffee or lunch out on the street front. To me, that is what a college town should look like. Having three or four story condos with owner-occupancy can be saved for another neighborhood. I am not suggesting that we do not need more housing.

I am not suggesting that densification as a rule is a bad practice. I agree with conservation of agricultural land on the city periphery and recognize that a chief way to do that is to pack more people into less space. However, there are places to do that and in my view, this is not one of them.

I feel like last night, my Davis, my town where I have lived for almost 11 years, was taken from me and that it might never come back. This character once destroyed, I fear will never be restored. I can only hope that in the near future, we can have a council majority that does a better job of mixing the needs of development, growth, and business--all of which are essential to this community--with the character and the soul of this community. I do not oppose all growth, I do not oppose the concept of densification, but I very strongly opposed this growth, this densification, and this demolition of one of my favorite aspects of this great community.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Guest Commentary: Old North Davis Neighborhood Association Opposes 3rd and B Street Vision

Regarding the City Council Hearing of Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3rd & B Street Vision or zoning changes to the Central Park West Conservation District

Old North Davis Neighborhood Association (ONDNA) does not support the 3rd and B Street Vision.

The 3rd and B Street Vision violates The Davis Downtown and Traditional Neighborhood Residential Design Guidelines, a document written by citizens in a democratic process to protect the few Conservation Districts that exist in Davis. For many years, development within the Conservation Districts (Old North, Old East and Central Park West) has been shaped by The Design Guidelines, which imposes a rational set of rules to sustain the historic, medium density, small scale, pedestrian friendly, shaded neighborhoods that residents love and the citizens of Davis and visitors enjoy. The 3rd & B Street Vision proposes rezoning a portion of the Central Park West Conservation District. Presumably in order to forward this proposal, the EIR makes only a partial effort to evaluate impacts to the remaining Central Park West neighborhood and to the other Conservation Districts. The proposed change over time from low to high density residential construction looking for more commercial and retail space, so consequently the permitting of much taller structures along the 3rd Street corridor looks as if it will generate tremendous impacts on the Central Park West neighborhood as well as Old East and Old North by way of attempts at circumventing the Design Guidelines.

We have yet to see studies or evidence that retail along 3rd Street is even desirable or would be successful. The "vision" was initially sold as densification to accommodate student housing at the City/University interface, but that vision has now fallen by the wayside and densification is being promoted as "owner occupied" high end townhouse units. This is in defiance of the Design Guidelines that the rest of the Central Park West neighborhood would still have to conform to. The planning staff notes significant impacts to the historic character of this neighborhood, parking, traffic, loss of urban tree canopy and likely loss of context for other historic structures, i.e. "redevelopment" will occur in a piecemeal fashion, causing the initial demolition of a few original structures, but the eventual loss of context and appeal of the remaining structures and the unraveling of the historic fabric of the current neighborhood.

Additionally, the EIR did not evaluate the impact the densification would have on the traffic and parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. OND fought hard to establish a unique parking district which is community minded and allows for unrestricted parking on 2/3rds of our street space. We currently share our parking with students, downtown workers, and shoppers. About half the commuters who park in Old North come from 15 to 50 miles from Davis and have no other place to park. The "vision" currently allows for intense densification but does not require developers to provide adequate parking (the EIR would allow for in-lieu payments to the City instead), potentially pushing the parking and traffic problem into the surrounding neighborhoods, already over-full.

City Council asked to look at rezoning the 3rd & B Street area to see what could be done about "blight", as well as to superimpose zoning that would take the place of overlapping and contradictory directions for development there. This rationale is not a valid one, or else it has not been demonstrated. In order to justify requests to demolish, rebuild and sell, B Street South of 5th is being termed an "edge" area with problems common to all arterial streets in the Conservation Districts: exposure of residents to heavier or commercial use across a bordering arterial, multiple needs of a more diverse population (students, residents, landlords, homeowners, developers looking for "infill" lots on which to build new housing.

Developers and property owners, some absentee landlords, are arguing that along B Street, deterioration of the original structures is so severe they are no longer useful or profitable properties and for that reason the same owners want exemptions from The Design Guidelines. Project proposals originating with property owners on B Street have been made with the expectations of special treatment with rewards for poor or no sense of stewardship and long deferred maintenance should they build the high end townhouses they propose, and sell them at substantial profits. The vision while proposing infill is actually setting the stage for demolition and redevelopment of most if not all the historic structures sited within the proposed zoning.

Davis's other Conservation Districts also border city arterials. Old North has 5th Street on its southern border, G Street on the East and should the ball fields between City Hall and Martin Luther King High School be developed, B Street on its west. Old East shares 5th Street to the north, L to the East and H Street off the downtown. [Along with the residents of the University-Rice Lane neighborhood, we in Old North too frequently find ourselves attending meetings where developers attempt to promote similar treatment for our arterial borders. These areas of high visibility are not just of huge importance in exposing all the passerby to our architectural history, they set the context for the rest of our neighborhood structures and serve useful lives as affordable housing.

If City Council entertains exemptions for proposals to develop B Street properties, it will increase pressure on Old North and Old East to allow the Design Guidelines to be put aside in favor of building high density four story commercial and high end residential structures in our neighborhoods as well. Developers are already buying up properties in these neighborhoods, hedging their bets that they can tear down the historic houses and maximize the profitability of the property.

Old North recommends scrapping the 3rd and B Street Vision in favor of consistent application of the Design Guidelines to all development within the Conservation Districts.

We have had significant successes using the Design Guidelines, have seen solid gains in resale property values and turnover of housing from rental to owner occupied. In the last five years along C Street alone, five alley accessory structures have been added, three houses once rentals are now owner occupied, eight houses have new coats of paint, new landscaping or both. Other streets in the neighborhood have experienced similar revitalization. Student renters are integrated into the social fabric of the neighborhood by renting our accessory structures, instead of being balkanized into apartment complexes. Our neighborhood is seeing innovative architectural strategies developed: finished basements in new construction that add space without adding a second story, revival architecture, drought tolerant landscaping. We are benefiting from historical research and publications from John Lofland and Valerie Vann that contribute to our sense of identity as people who value modest homes, solid workmanship, irreplaceable materials, the generational time line of houses now approaching a century old. The residents of Old North Davis are sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into improving their existing structures and are offended when we hear that such old houses are good for nothing more than demolition or removal to somewhere else, just because they need
work.

Our Neighborhood Association resists the removal/demolition of contributing structures.

ONDNA has the responsibility to review all proposals for major remodeling or removal/demolition of Old North houses. We work with the owners to comply with The Design Guidelines. In addition, it has provided information to realtors, potential buyers of properties, new owners and developers who benefit from understanding the parameters that apply to the Davis Conservation Districts. We aim to prevent unsuitable plans -- inappropriate demolition or inappropriate scale--from being pursued into the drawing stage, in order to prevent wasted effort and dollars. We have a neighborhood with a positive attitude toward adding appropriate density -- the original house with perhaps an additional bedroom, bathroom or perhaps an accessory structure on the alley or at the back of the lot.

ONDNA supports research and nomination of eligible structures for Merit Resource and Landmark Designations.

We support such efforts because we take the attitude that our significant old homes are Davis public space. They are palpable contact with sidewalks built by the WPA, homes built by previous generations with small energy footprints, grass and trees buffering contact with cars in the streets. They make real to the touch the history of the founders of our town and our great university. When we repair, maintain, live and work in the spaces occupied by the earlier activists and visionaries who shaped Davis we pay respect to their efforts. Tearing down the places they built seems narcissistic and unimaginative to us. Relocating them is little better than archiving their photographs , their histories then setting fire to them. City Council members should encourage property owners along the B Street and 3rd Street corridors to repair their homes, add alley accessory structures, rent to students where appropriate and maintain some our most visible, historically important sets of addresses. The Turtle House, just restored to adaptive reuse by Michael Harrington, is a terrific case in point.

We urge you to attend the Davis City Council Hearings on Tuesday, June 12 after 7:30 PM, and resist the developer vision for B St. high density.

Signed,

Sheryl Lynn Gerety, ONDNA President
Kathleen Groody, ONDNA Treasurer
Steve Tracy, ONDNA Member-at-Large
Dennis Dingemans, ONDNA Member-at-Large
Angela Wilson, ONDNA Former President

Saylor Announcement: The Rest of the Story

Don Saylor announces his bid for reelection, and the Davis Enterprise treats it as a headlining story, not only above the fold, but at the very top of the paper. We of course have known since January that Saylor would be running for reelection, and it is worth noting that his counterpart and colleague Stephen Souza did not get above the fold treatment when he announced his reelection bid a few months back.

However, this story is not about placement, it is not about what Saylor said on Friday night, and it is about what he did not say and what was not reported. You've heard the news; now you will hear... the rest of the story.

In the photo on the right from the Davis Enterprise, Saylor is shown talking to Bruce West and Jeff Pelz from West Yost Associates. What the Davis Enterprise does not tell you is who West Yost Associates is and what their connection to Davis City government entails. West Yost Associates are the water consulting engineers who have been receiving city money to design and construct the new water intake system. That's a project estimated to run the city between $150 and $300 million dollars and likely to increase residents' water rates by two to three fold over the next 10 years or so.

Don Saylor has been a strong champion of the new water project despite strong reservation from many progressive, environmental, and smart growth groups. The project has drawn strong questioning from a number of university faculty who are experts in water quality. These experts have great concerns about the costs of the project, wisdom of transporting Sacramento River Water, alternatives, environmental impacts, etc. However, the city led by Don Saylor has heard very few of these concerns at least in public, and one of the reasons is the insistence of Don Saylor to push this project through. So here you have associates with a company that has millions of dollars worth of business with the city at an event supporting Don Saylor's bid for reelection, meanwhile Saylor has refused to support an independent, outside second opinion regarding the feasibility of postponing this project until the $200 million wastewater and storm water upgrades are paid off.

But there is more. As the Vanguard has demonstrated in the past, Saylor continues to want to have it both ways--supporting development projects while talking about sustainability and a lighter environmental footprint.

According to the paper, Saylor said, "sustainability cannot be accomplished by 'saying no to every development opportunity.'"

Sounds like a fair enough statement, but then there is no mention of Saylor's track record on development. In fact, it is hard to think of a development opportunity that Saylor has not supported. Saylor hasn't "said no to every development opportunity," he's said no to almost no development opportunities.

On this score, no mention of the ardent support that Don Saylor had for Covell Village. He was outspoken as a supporter of Covell Village both in the planning phase and in the ballot initiative phase. In fact, he was much more than just a supporter--he and his council majority colleagues actively campaigned for the proposal--acting as advocates and cheerleaders for it. He acted as an advocate for developer interests on the Covell project as a member of the council. This is a proposal that was voted down by the Davis voters by nearly a 60-40 margin, and yet Don Saylor supported it, strongly. Now he wants to suggest that we cannot say no to every development opportunity.

Likewise, Don Saylor was a strong advocate for Target, an initiative that passed by the barest of margins last November despite a $300,000 campaign that outspent the opposition by over 10 to 1. As with the Covell Village project, he worked on the Target campaign and helped to get it passed. These are two of the biggest development projects ever proposed in Davis and Don Saylor was supporting both of them.

Don Saylor's statement about not turning down every development opportunity rings false, in fact, I wonder if there has ever been a major development opportunity that Saylor has opposed in Davis. Frankly, if he supported Covell, he's probably going to support them all. Those of you who are nervous about the 3rd and B Street Visioning Project might want to keep that in mind.

Those of you who voted against Covell Village should be wary that there are plans and have been discussions both in council and in the Housing Element Committee to look into Covell Village II. This is not just about punishing Saylor for his past votes, it is for ensuring that the residents of Davis, 60% of whom voted against Covell Village, have their choice respected by their elected representatives on the council.

Saylor also made veiled reference to "sustaining the fabric of community."

According to the Enterprise:

"By that, Saylor was referring to the tone of public discourse in Davis which has, at times, crept into the uncivil. He pointed guests to copies of an op-ed piece he wrote for The Davis Enterprise about community relations."

Well if Saylor wants to wage his campaign based on civility, I would suggest he is opening a giant hornet's nest. If Saylor wants to point people toward his op-ed piece, I will point Vanguard readers toward my response to his op-ed piece, entitled: Who is Saylor to Lecture US on Civility in Public Discourse? In that piece, specific incidents are mentioned where Saylor himself is uncivil--attacking both the Mayor and Councilmember Lamar Heystek--sometimes rather viciously.

Don Saylor wants to talk about civility does he? Where was Don Saylor when his colleague Ruth Asmundson attacked Mayor Greenwald on the dais?

Asmundson stated:

"It's just unfortunate that the mayor cannot run the meeting more efficiently... If we have a more efficient meeting then we can finish all these things."

As it turned out the problem was not so much that the mayor couldn't run a meeting more efficiently it was that certain council members, namely Asmundson and Saylor spoke for a disproportionately long time compared to their colleagues. Of course, Saylor never spoke against the uncivil tone that his ally used, and yet he wants to lecture us about bringing civility to this community? How about starting by putting your money where your mouth is.

Politicians get away with making misleading statements because no one calls them on the truth. When Saylor wants to run a campaign based on half-truths and tries to have it both ways to confuse the voters into believing he is environmentally conscious and that the debate is really over not turning down every development, he attempts to insult the intelligence of the voters of this town. The voters know that Saylor has a reputation as a strong supporter of even development projects that are voted down by massive margins and as a man who is quick to be just as uncivil to other individuals as he falsely accuses them of being to him.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Davis as an anti-student College Town?

I've seen this all before in a way, having grown up in another college town which in most respects was not very student friendly. For some reason, there are constant wars between the town folks who are permanent residents and the students who are treated more like outside invaders than economic livelihood makers. There are many differences in San Luis Obispo and Davis, but there seem to be some major similarities, most notably that the university comprises a tremendous percentage of the economy both directly in terms of employment and indirectly in terms of drawing students who then spent their money on the retail and entertainment in the town. The other similarity is darker and more insidious, and that is the attitude of the townsfolk toward the temporary residents.

The recent debate over the 3rd and B St Visioning Project illustrates rather perfectly the tension in Davis' identity. On the one hand, the stated purpose of the project is to bring the university together with the larger community. The project's goal is to create "an urban village" that will include higher density homes with a stronger connection with UC Davis. On the other hand, they go about achieving that by eliminating a large number of student homes and housing on the edge of campus and replace them with owner-occupied homes. Owner-occupied homes meaning non-absent landlord, meaning not student rentals.

If you look at the city of Davis and compare it to a lot of other distinctly college towns in this country, you will notice that there are no areas that are distinctly student areas. There are few to no businesses that are distinctly there to serve students. To the extent that there are even any of those types of businesses the closest you can come in the city is on Third Street between A and University.

The closing of Roma was a tremendous blow to the vitality of this area, but you still have a number of restaurants that rely on students coming off campus to frequent them. You still have Navines which does a tremendous proportion of its business with the university. And you have a large concentration of student rental units not only on third street but throughout the neighborhood.

As I have stated three times now, one in each piece I have done on this project, the only part of Davis the really feels like a college town is this area of town immediately to the east of the university.

Compared with other college towns this area is extremely small in land area. In many ways it extends only up to Russell, over to B Street and down to 1st Street. That's really four square blocks, eight if you count University as a full block in between B and A.

And yet even that small space is under attack from those in this city. As it is, I am unfortunately forced to conclude that the "vision" here is completely and fundamentally anti-student whereby one key element in the "vision" is to eliminate the presence of students in the neighborhood currently most closely associated with the university. How ironic that this is actually being sold as a means to create a stronger connection with UC Davis--how do you do that by kicking all of the current student occupants out of the neighborhood?

It is interesting to understand that this is merely the latest round is a long historical process of removing students from the Davis downtown. If this "vision" is realized, Davis residents will have achieved an end for which they have been working since at least the 1930s.

As Professor John Lofland documents in his Papers on Davis History article "A 1920s-50s Student District in Davis, California," when Second Street was the dominant east-west link between the railroad and the UCD campus, a student district first developed on and near Second between A and B (and spread).

But in a late 1930s zoning struggle within the Davis elite that was won by the anti-student faction, student living groups--the norm of the time--were hemmed in and discouraged as a matter of public policy.

A key episode in 1938 set in motion a "student removal" (or at least strong containment) policy that has been in play ever since. So it is that from well over a dozen fraternities in the downtown just after World War II, we are now down to two, neither of which is in the University-Rice area. (Indeed, it is ironic as Professor Lofland notes, that one of the leading current defenders of a student presence in the Third and B area was himself one of the leading architects of student removal, in the form of stern living group treatment, over the 1970s and '80s.)

[Click here to view the paper drawn from above]

Student removal is thus an old story and debate. It is a constant struggle in Davis, at least according to Professor Lofland. So far this debate has not been framed in these terms, but rather as a debate between development and preservation. However, it seems of necessity to look at the overall impact of this policy if it is carried out.

The majority on council has taken strong measures to portray itself as pro-university. But the student population comprises 30,000 people. How can a city council be pro-university if their policies harm the largest consumers of university services and thus put greater strain on the university once again to provide adequate and affordable residences for its student population.

We should further note that this debate takes place at the end of Spring Quarter, just as students are about to take their finals. The students are not even paying attention to this issue. But in a few years, they will find their prime locations for residences torn down and replaced with multi-use and multi-level condos that are designated as owner-occupied. This is the type of college town we appear to live in?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: B Street and 3rd Project Moves on Despite Concerns

The proposed B and 3rd Street Visioning Project moved forward with approval from the Planning Commission on Wednesday night. This despite a number of concerns raised by residents in the neighborhood, some of which were altered, and by residents in the community concerned that such a massive and drastic project would alter the character of Davis.

The most serious concerns raised by the Commission were those of traffic and parking. While I agree that both of these are serious concerns, I think this is the beginning and not the end of the potential problems. The intersection of 2nd and B is of particular concern. That intersection is a disaster waiting to happen, not just because of the congestion on B Street, but also because of the somewhat obstructed visibility that a driver coming out of 2nd Street faces. The traffic planner says that is a light waiting to happen but it has not reached the outflow capacity needed to trigger such a change. What I think the city is missing is that many people simply avoid that intersection because of the difficulty particularly of making a left turn. That turns much of the traffic onto A Street, a street that will become even more congested if the density of that neighborhood increases.

It became apparent on Wednesday night that many of the residents in that neighborhood understood full well that this project is going forward. As I told several people this week, there is simply no way that this city council majority is going to vote against a development project. Moreover, with Sue Greenwald conflicted off this vote, it is basically going to be a 3-1 vote for approval on the council when it gets that far.

As such, the residents of that community seemed to strategically aim for compromise rather than outright opposition. Residents came forward with a list of recommended changes in the project itself. Resident John Hall basically came forward and said that the residents do not oppose a reasonable plan, but the current proposal is over-the-top.

The Planning Commission did make one recommendation to alter the proposal and that is to limit the buildings to 38 feet or three stories, which is certainly better than four stories, but still seems a bit much. The density is such that the trees are going to end up going.

As I suggested in my story on Tuesday, this is one of my favorite neighborhoods in all of Davis. This neighborhood is what originally drew me to UC Davis. I liked the atmosphere of the college town and this is really the neighborhood that has the college town feel with the older bungalows with both students and city residents living together. You go to many college towns in this country and you will get the same feel.

Driving through the neighborhood yesterday, it is clear that some of the homes are in disrepair. It is also clear that space could be better utilized. The solution however is not to raze the entire area, building up high density three story townhouses and other units. A more modest project could obtain much of what both the planners and residents desire.

There is one crucial mistake made by both the city, the planners, and the developers, and that is the Environmental Impact Report. The EIR looks only at the impact of the development area itself. Now that limited scope has been defended somewhat by city staff. Defended with some concerns about it clearly mentioned. But the lack of study of the impact of this project on the adjacent neighborhoods and streets may end up delaying this project by a considerable amount of time should the residents or adjacent neighbors wish to challenge the EIR in court. From the discussions it was never clear the rationale of why the council insisted on such a limited EIR.

The big question I keep coming back to in all of this has to do with part of the proposed reason for the project to bring the university and the city together. The idea here is to produce a number of owner occupied units rather than the current arrangement which has many of the units rented to UC Davis students. As many who live in the area have suggested, they enjoy living near and among UC Davis students. They do not have problems with noise from those students.

How in the world do you bring the community together with the university if the first thing you are going to do is get rid of the students? All of those students who live in our community will be forced to live elsewhere.

The problem here is not the students. The problem is that a number of the units currently are in poor condition, especially on third street between B and University. A number of the apartment units north of Second Street are also poorly designed and could use to either be torn down and rebuilt or redone. The culprits in both cases are the owners of the homes and buildings who have allowed their property to deteriorate considerably.

However, I think the model for redevelopment should not be to raze the neighborhood, destroying both the character and the historic nature of the area. Rather they should look no further than the so-called Turtle House on 2nd Street between University and A Street. This property was purchase by former Davis City Councilmember Mike Harrington, who pumped money in to restore it. It is now a mixed use home, housing not only the owner, but also a number of students who rent several of the other units. The house is no longer blight, no longer looks like a good wind storm will knock it over. And yet the historic nature of the home and the character of it are intact. Guess what, it is "high density" and yet the character has been preserved.

If people want to know what type of infill I support, what type of redevelopment projects we should be undertaking, we should look no further than this property. We can remake that neighborhood along those lines, preserve the historic nature of the area, preserve the college town feel, continue with the mixed use of business, owner occupancy, and rental units. That's the type of vision I would like to see. And that is the type of vision I simply do not see with this project.

It remains very clear that this project will go forward. It remains less clear as to whether the residents will tie things up in court with a challenge to the EIR. However, what is crystal clear to me is that this is the wrong type of project for this area.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting