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

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

City To Look into Strengthening Public Records Retention Policies

File this one under politics makes for strange bedfellows. During the course of my investigation into Davis Joint Unified and Tahir Ahad, one thing I discovered was the key public records under the California Public Records Act and Brown Act requirements can be discarded after a given period of time.

The most important of these records are the video recordings of meetings. For example, the city of Davis retains videos of meetings for three months. One can go to the library and view videos for meetings for up to two years prior. However, beyond that two year period, videos generally are hard to come by and are not systematically stored anywhere.

That means outside of the two year period one has to rely on the minutes of meetings and newspaper articles for the historical record. Minutes of meetings are not transcripts and newspaper articles by their very nature are selective. As we discovered, you never know in the future what will be important to preserve.

As such I have made it a point this year to work with all of the local jurisdictions to expand the retention of public records. Of the three, the county seems to be the most advanced in that capacity.

At the city level, I approached Rich Rifkin, who sits on the Historic Resources Management Commission and asked him if he had interest in bringing the item forward for discussion there. He brought this item up on Monday night at the joint HRMC-Council meeting. There was consensus at that time to explore the issue.

Last night at the council meeting, Lamar Heystek brought up the item as a future agenda item. He was directed by City Manager Bill Emlen to explore the issue with City Attorney Harriet Steiner and City Clerk Margaret Roberts. Councilmember Don Saylor will join in what will become a subcommittee.

The council had clear consensus that they would like to expand their retention of such records. As City Attorney Harriet Steiner pointed out, and this is my interpretation as non-lawyer as well, the Public Records Act creates a minimum standard for access and retention, but local jurisdictions are not precluded from enacting much stronger measures.

One of my strongest passions is to have as open and transparent a government as possible. Along with that is the necessity to preserve an historic record of proceedings so that we can view past discussions and if necessarily hold elective official accountable for their past actions. We cannot do that if we lose good portions of that historic record.

There is certainly an expense and a space concern. The fact that information can be digitized and stored on DVDs mitigates that concern somewhat. But that is a valid concern. The future will probably make the storage of such records more feasible.

It is refreshing to see commitment by all council members toward this issue and I expect that it will go forward in an expeditious manner in the future.

---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

News and Commentary: City Council Goes Forward with Alternative 3 on Tank House

Depending on your perspective, nights like Tuesday are what make Davis interesting, boring, and/ or at the very least unpredictable. Fifty to sixty people filed into Council Chambers to discuss the future of the Tank House. Ordinary alliances are disrupted for that night and the dispute boils down to two alternatives to the main project.

Alternative 3 is the staff recommended and owner preferred alternative. This alternative calls for a two story building between the Varsity Theater and the Hunt-Boyer Mansion and the Tank House to be demolished, moved, and then reconstructed to the west of a building. Ultimately that project alternative won out by a scant 3-2 vote.

Alternative 5 became the other option on this night. This was Richard Berteaux's proposal. Quite frankly Rich Rifkin - and the artist rendering - sold me on this alternative, and it became my preferred alternative. This preferred alternative provided a greenhouse-type set up and the broader expanse of open space.

Sinisa Novakovic was allowed to speak at length. He made several interesting points. During one point he made he stated that people acted like it would be the "end of western civilization if the tank house is taken down." He then cited the length of time that nothing has been done in the community to restore the tank house or fix it up.

His choice was to restore it and put up a "beautiful building." He also suggested that Chuck Roe told him if he did not build three stories, he would not make money. This, he suggested, was evidence that he was putting up vast and considerable personal risk into this project. A claim that I have little doubt, is true.

Barbara King, a long time Davis resident during her comments pretty much summed up a lot of people's feelings on this project when she expressed regret that she had to oppose Mr. Novakovic and Mayor Sue Greenwald on this project.

In the end, I believed that Alternative 5 was a better project alternative than Alternative 3, that it kept more of the original intact and also created a better feel in a very small space. From the start, the idea of squeezing a building into that narrow space between the Varsity and the Mansion was unsettling.

Rand Herbert, the Chair of the Historic Management Resources Commission (HMRC) argued that the assessment of the impact of moving the tank house on the historic and aesthetic value of the site was opinion rather than fact. In his opinion, adopting alternative 3 would adversely impact two city owned landmarks in order to benefit a private economic entity and he did not feel that was the best approach.

Richard Berteux also spoke at length during the meeting citing the fact that he gave up his seat on the HMRC in order to speak freely on this issue and develop an alternative proposal. He has a strong sense of the value of the Tank House to the Hunt-Boyer Mansion and felt that we were not giving proper value to the importance of what we had there. He further said that he felt open space around both structures were vital and that down the road, the open space might be worth much more than developing this property. Alternative 5 was the best option in his view to preserve and protect this open space.

Tim Allis brought in a petition with 162 signatures as a means to protect the value of historic preservation and open space.

Councilmember Don Saylor was first among the members of the council to speak. Mr. Saylor suggested that some believe that the Tank House is not worth saving, but he called that view uniformed, suggesting that this was a very unique structure. He agreed with the project objectives and the idea of creating new retail commercial development and increasing the vitality on this block. To him it came down between both alternatives 3 and 5, which he suggested in his opinion (and stressed this was subjective) had merit. However, he saw moving the Tank House to the West Side of the building as the preferred alternative and that he believes in his subjective opinion that the Tank House is in a bad location at present. In his view, "alternative 3 is the best option to preserve the tank house in its historic form."

Councilmember Stephen Souza, in my view, has been consistent in his desire to preserve historic buildings. He was the deciding vote in saving the Anderson Bank Building from drastic alteration, and he lamented during several points in time the lack of historic buildings and sites in Davis--a number that in the core area is just five. He suggested that the historic nature of this site is unique, that nothing like it is in the rest of the city with two historic sites on the same location.

He felt that this project could be done on the other side of the building. While he did not express a preferred alternative, option 5 seemed to be the closest to what he wanted. He also felt that a one-story structure would have been more compatible with the site than a two story structure, which he felt took something away from the site as a whole. He hoped that the site remains in the hands of the city rather than private enterprise.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek spoke at length to this as his most difficult decision that he faced while on the council. He said that there were good people, people he considered friends and allies, on both sides of the issue and that he has kept an open mind throughout public comment. During his comments, it seemed almost as though he were stalling as he thought through his conclusion, but in the end he felt that our standard for economic development should be adaptive reuse on site of historic resources. Councilmember Heystek said that he believes that our neglect of this site--demolition by neglect he called it--was a great crime. He too was supportive of alternative 5 as the best option to hold to the standard of adaptive reuse on site.

As it turned out, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson was the swing vote on this, since it was obvious to everyone that Mayor Sue Greenwald would be supporting this and she suggested this a number of months ago in various conversations. Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson was inclined for option 3, but she was adamant about the city retaining ownership of the property.

Mayor Greenwald supported alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. She felt this was a compromise arrangement and that it had adequate setbacks to avoid the encroachment on open space of other buildings. She wants this building to be a model of redevelopment and believes that any negative visual and historic impacts can be mitigated.

She then spoke at some length about her vision. She argued it was hard to imagine a vital downtown without independent theaters and independent coffee houses. I doubt anyone disagrees with that view. The only point in question was really what form this should take. Finally, she argued that the bigger threat to downtown and the core and our values was not by this project, but rather by the threat to tear down cottages in the B St Visioning Project. A point that I also wholeheartedly agree with.

In the end, it was a set of unique alliances that pushed this through. Don Saylor made the main motion for alternative 3 seconded by Sue Greenwald.

Stephen Souza made the substitute motion for alternative five seconded by Lamar Heystek. When that motion failed 3-2, the main motion passed 3-2 with Ruth Asmundson joining in. Once again the Mayor Pro Tem pushed for the city to leave open the ownership issue, an idea that was accepted.

In the end, I was swayed toward alternative 5, but on this issue it seems a subjective view as to what alternative best fit the needs for economic development and historic preservation. More troubling to me -- yet again -- is our neglect of historic buildings in Davis. The issue came up with regards to the Anderson Bank Building and the fact that the city was asked to bail out in essence a private owner who had failed to properly upkeep his property. In this case, as they say, we saw the enemy and it is us. It is us, the citizens of Davis and the city of Davis who failed in historic preservation to the point where the only way that we are able to preserve, is by destroying. This is not a "stomachable" option in my perspective. Our history and our legacy need to be preserved so that future generations can understand where we have come from. I urge the city and those devoted to historic preservation to never allow this to happen again.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Council to Hear EIR on Tankhouse Project

Though it seems as though this issue has been on the table for a considerable amount of time, the city will finally hear and vote on the EIR for the Hunt-Boyer Tankhouse project.

The Final Environmental Impact Report evaluates the potential environmental impact of a proposal for Mishka's Cafe that would be located on a portion of the historic Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer Mansion at 604 Second Street in downtown Davis. This project would demolish the existing tank house structure and orange grove at 604 Second Street to accommodate the construction of a new three-story commercial building between the varsity theater and the Mansion, according to the Davis city staff report.

The owner of the site Sinisa Novakovic and the staff report however now support Alternative 3 to the proposal.

The third alternative would construct a two-story building in the location instead of three stories. It would remove the remaining orange trees "and disassemble, reassemble, and rehabilitate the Tank House on the west side of the Mansion for potential public use as a visitor information kiosk or private commercial use."

This alternative was voted down by the Historic Resources Management Commission (HMRC) by a 3-1 with a number of commissioners either absent or recused.

Richard Berteux, a former member of the HMRC wrote a letter to the Davis Enterprise in yesterday's paper pleading that the city not destroy the tank house.

"I believe it would be an indefensible proposition for the city to consider such a step. The General Plan makes it very clear the city should be a leader and example in historic preservation.

However, notwithstanding the value of the tank house, we are ignoring the longer-term view of what is best for the city and the community. This property belongs to the community, and our common benefit must remain the first priority, not private interests or financial gain. Certainly money is important, but should not be the most important consideration.

The most appealing cities have always provided wisely for open space. Here the mansion and tank house sit on a small but valuable patch of open space in the epicenter of the core area, which will only become much denser. Such a patch will be unaffordable in the future. This should be enough reason for preserving the site as it is."

As current member Rich Rifkin described earlier this month, Mr. Berteux favors alternative 5.

"A-5 would reconstruct the tankhouse, but move it slightly closer to the street, where it would be more visible and slightly closer to the mansion. Along the Varsity wall, Richard proposes an enclosed glass structure for all-weather seating for 50 people. There would be a glass breezeway connecting the side structure to the tankhouse, which would be used for food service and preparation. And there would be seating in the plaza for around 50 people."

Mr. Rifkin also described his interchange with Mr. Novakovic at the HMRC meeting:

"I asked Sinise a few questions. It was my question about his thoughts on the 2-story proposal which brought out the news that he now favors A-3 over the proposed project. I then asked him how he felt about Richard's "greenhouse" idea. Sinise said that it wouldn't work for him, because it has too little space for food preparation and storage.

However, I think the problems Sinise pointed out are resolvable. Because Richard is moving the tankhouse north somewhat, there is plenty of unused space on the property south of the tankhouse, which could be used for a larger food prep space and storage. I imagine it could connect with the tankhouse by yet another glass breezeway.

Sinise also told me that he didn't think my idea -- to use the mansion as a restaurant with outdoor seating on the plaza -- was workable, the big problem being the way it is off the street and without front-window exposure. He thinks the mansion might work for a high-end restaurant, but only one with an established clientele."

The illustration of Mr. Berteux alternative idea appears courtesy of Mr. Rifkin.

The Davis Historical Society has several notable critiques of the proposal including a lengthy response and critic of the EIR by Valerie Vann which is excerpted here.

Ms. Vann provides an analysis of the Alternative 5:

"Alternative 5 does, however, have some troubling aspects in terms of meeting the Secretary’s Standards as a re-use/rehab of the Tank House: the loss of the historic west side window; presenting a blank wall to the east bay window of the Mansion; being moved directly opposite to the bay window and much closer; the kitchen use, which will require plumbing, venting, probably fans and/or air conditioning equipment; a use that may produce steam and high humidity inside the structure. Previous occupancies of the Tank House with similar uses and interior alterations and utility requirements did not prove to be beneficial to the preservation of the historic structure and were probably overambitious considering the size, type of construction, and such characteristics as sloping sides of the structure. (Multiple opening in the siding compromised the structural soundness as well.)"

She concludes:

"Overall, however, it is difficult to see that Alternative 5 is less compatible with or has more impacts on the Tank House and Mansion than other Alternatives that propose moving the Tank House (which produces additional impacts in itself) and constructing a large modern building between the two Landmarks and unrelated to either one of them. The EIR seems to imply that it does."

There is a general lamentation of "Historic resources" as an "endangered species" in general and "in Davis far more so than in most other places our size."

She concludes with the following criticism of the project:

"All three of these EIRs evaluated proposed projects found to have Significant and Unavoidable Impacts (i.e. not possible to mitigate to insignificance) in multiple areas of concern, requiring that the City make findings of “overriding considerations”, that is, identify public interests that justify doing significant irreparable damage to the environment. Really good projects don’t have to have significant unavoidable impacts. Projects that do should be very few and justified by truly overwhelming long term public interests.

According to the General Plan (HIS 1.3-Actions), Davis is supposed be a leader in caring for historic and cultural resources. So why is Davis, of all places – where caring for all aspects of the environment is supposedly the city’s motto, not only allowing proposals for private projects with these kinds of unavoidable environmental impacts, but actually itself proposing such a damaging project for public property?"

To read several other critiques, please click here.

Once again, the City Council will meet tomorrow evening to discuss this issue and the city staff has recommended along with the property owner Alternative 3.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

New Fight over Remaking the Core Landscape at 3rd and B Street

A controversial new proposal is seeking to raze an entire block of homes in the Davis core area on the west side of B Street between 2nd and 4th and on 3rd Street between B and University (see map). It will replace the current homes, most of which are small old-time bungalows with large new buildings "in order to provide a more attractive “transition” between the downtown and the university." Part of this change will be to push out the student renters who live in this area and replace them with owner/ occupants.

The proposal includes 3-story mixed-use buildings with office and residential or owner/ occupied townhouses along B Street. It will explicitly be designed to discourage student rentals.

This project right now is known as the B and 3rd Streets Visioning Process.

According to Sarah Worley, The Economic Development Director for the City of Davis and the primary staff person on the 3rd & B project, at the Historical Resources Management Commission (HMRC) meeting last week, this process first arose in 2004 at the behest of the Davis City Council and two B Street property owners who requested to be allowed to demolish their existing structure and build much larger buildings on their land.

Both of the proposals were in violation of the Davis Downtown and Traditional Residential Neighborhood Design Guidelines, as well as the Core Area Specific Plan and the General Plan. One of these projects was rejected by the City Council; the other plan was withdrawn.

The project's goal is to create "an urban village" that will include higher density homes with a stronger connection with UC Davis (even though they are kicking out the students currently residing in that area.) It also again looks for owner occupancy and reinvestment in that area.

One of the concerns raised by many is that the EIR is inadequate, since the project area does not include studying the impact on areas just outside of where the zoning will be changed.

At the meeting last week, the HRMC voted on a motion:

"Is the Final EIR incomplete for the purposes of decision-making, particularly as it relates to impacts on historical resources, because it fails to adequately address the impacts and mitigations on the larger core area conservation district?”

This motion was made by member Rich Rifkin, who ultimately abstained from voting due to some uncertainties that arose from staff's objections, however, the commission voted 3-2-2 in support of that motion.

According to an outside consultant hired by the city of Davis, the limitations on the EIR were due to the directive of the city council.

The planning commission will meet next. Staff is recommending the approval of the EIR at the May 30, 2007 meeting.

As the staff report notes, there continues to be areas of controversy.

"At present and at the time of Council action on Vision 4 there was not community consensus as to the desired form of development in the project area. The one area of consensus was a desire for more owner occupied housing. There was also a recognition that some changes were necessary to encourage reinvestment and achieve a stronger connection between the Downtown and the University."

Some of the main objections appear to be coming from people just outside of the main project area, an area apparently not studied in the EIR. Only two of the property owners in the project area have expressed objection and their objection is based the requirement for mitigation of alley right-of-way. There are also two property owners within the area who are not interested in redevelopment who wish to see a smaller scale of development.

Here are some of the proposal that have drawn heavy concern and criticism as noted by the staff report:

• fourth floor and maximum height of 56 feet
• third floor and height of 45 feet
• density bonus for construction of condo units
• expanding existing 13 foot alley right-of-way to 20 feet
• require alley right-of-way only from east side of alley
• demolition of "Eligible Merit Resource and a group of structures that contribute to the historic setting of the area if suitable relocation sites are not available"
• payments in-lieu of parking fees for non-residential uses and parking above one space per residential unit in mixed use projects.

Commentary:

Most of the people I have spoken to and many of the people speaking at the EMRC meeting have expressed very strong concerns about the project. Several people came up to me at Farmer's Market last Saturday and expressed grave reservations both about the project and the EIR which is moving its way through the process.

The primary concern I have is the narrow EIR under the explicit direction of the City Council. That is alarming not just because of the EIR process not taking into account the impacts on the larger area, but it is also indicative of where the council stands on this issue, which is to suggest that they are in support.

Staff pressed the HMRC to approve the EIR, but there were sufficient concerns by the membership to reject it by the barest of margins despite what appeared to be heavy pressure from staff. It seems unlikely that the Planning Commission would do the same tomorrow night.

The irony of this proposal is that this area of Davis is what first attracted me to the city. It presents the feeling of a true college town, with old houses, students, and small quaint shops that service primarily a student population. The character and feel of this neighborhood would be destroyed by the large-scale development. The students would be in essence evicted, the nature of the entire area would be changed.

As one of the members of the HMRC, Valerie Vann, pointed out, this project makes a traditional neighborhood, no longer a traditional neighborhood.

I understand the need and desire for densification and redevelopment. I would support such efforts on a case-by-case basis, but in this case, it does not seem to meet the needs of this neighborhood judging from the objections that have already been underway from a variety of different sources--two of whom are former councilmembers Mike Harrington and Maynard Skinner, both of whom came the HMRC meeting to speak against the proposed project and both of whom live in that neighborhood.

Unfortunately, this project appears to be underway at the behest of council and with the support of council, which suggests to me that this is already a done deal. While I suspect this will not go down without a fight, the council majority rarely has acceded to public pressure and they have rarely allowed public animus to get in the way of their goals and visions. This is particularly troublesome in an area that is so ripe with tradition and so vital to the character of our core area and to the students who utilize it in conjunction with their university living.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting