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

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: The question of neighborhood grocery stores ought to permeate future growth discussions

In 1999, a key debate in Davis emerged--what the impact of a 40,000 square-foot Nugget at Oak Tree Plaza would produce. Some including Bill Donaldson, Eileen Samitz, and Bill Alexander argued that the production of new and larger grocery stores would doom the 25,000 square-foot neighborhood grocery store which had been the hallmark of the 1987 Davis Gneeral Plan.

As they wrote at the time in an April 18, 1999 article:

"Are we going to abandon our neighborhood center policies, which serve our community both practically and in our very human need for social interaction with our friends and neighbors?"

At the time they were roundly criticized for their opposition to the larger grocery stores, which now dominate the landscape in Davis, at the expense of the neighborhood grocery store.

Gone are the small grocery stores at University Mall, the Davis Manor, and now the Westlake Shopping Center.

Is this simply reactionary alarmism or is there a valid argument to be made that we ought to have a series of smaller, 20 to 25,000 square foot grocery stores serving their specific communities?

Instead of looking back to answer this question, let us look forward. The concept is smart growth. Smart growth looks to more dense, mixed use development, that seeks to reduce traffic and drive time through smart urban design practices.

We see this philosophy at work here in Davis when we talk about densification as opposed to sprawl. The idea is the more tightly compact people reside, the closer they are to the city centers and the less they will have to drive in order to do their shopping, drive to downtown, and go to work. This plan seeks to increase walkability and biking and to reduce the amount that people are forced to drive.

We seem to have the idea of densification down to a tee in our discussions.

As Kevin Wolf, chair of the Housing Element Steering Committee wrote a week and a half ago:

"Among my primary motivations to provide housing for the growing number of students and employees in town is to reduce the regional loss of habitat and prime agricultural land. When growth occurs in Davis, far less habitat and ag land is lost then if that growth is shifted to Woodland, Vacaville, Dixon or the suburbs around Sacramento. Davis has approximately twice the density compared to these areas, which means for every acre developed in Davis, two acres won’t be developed elsewhere."

We understand densification even if we disagree on how much we need to densify. We also understand the need for more energy efficient design.

But another facet of smart growth is mixed-use planning. The reason one needs that is that if you place commercial development within residential development, you can enable people to walk and bike to do the bulk of their shopping. And when it comes to shopping, the most frequent form is food shopping.

However, our grocery store policies are at odds with those of our smart design desires. The more we consolidate shopping in larger, 40,000 square foot grocery stores, the more we have violated this principal. The vast majority of people who shop at the two Safeways and the Nugget on Covell and Poleline, are people who are driving to get their food. As these stores have flourished, many of the neighborhood stores have disappeared.

One of the discussions that arose recently at the planning commission was what to do with Westlake Shopping Center where Ray"s and Food Fair had formerly resided. This is a smaller, 22,000 square foot store that had once served West Davis. Now, West Davis must drive 1.5 to 2 miles to the Safeway on Covell in order to do their shopping. Over the course of a year, that is a lot of additional driving. Meaning the emission of a lot of additional carbon. Hence big stores located in central areas rather than neighborhoods increase our carbon footprint.

But really it is worse than that. During the Target discussion we talked about the impact of big box retail, but one interesting discussion that occurred last year when Stacy Mitchell came to speak was the impact of big box grocery stores.

Let us compare the Co-Op to Safeway. The Co-Op is locally owned and operated. The profits go to those who reside in this community. Food is in part produced locally, particularly the produce. At the end of the day, the money is deposited into the local bank. Safeway on the other hand, has corporate ownership. All profits go to the Oakland corporate office. The money at the end of the day is deposited in a bank in Oakland. The produce and food are all shipped in from out of town. In other words, yes Safeway produces revenue and some tax base but there is a tremendous amount of leakage. The whole operation relies on trucking to import the produce and food and export the money. From a city economic standpoint it is inefficient. From an environmental standpoint is increases the carbon footprint. And the large central local requires the individuals to drive to the store.

The argument here is that policies that produce smaller and more locally owned grocery stores would be better for the local economy and the local environment. But in order to do that we would have to limit the size of grocery stores. Our policies that allowed 40,000 square foot grocery stores to move in have produced undesirable results.

The city and the owner of Westlake appeared ready and willing to actually continue and proliferate those harmful policies but fortunately the planning commission stepped in and at least temporarily delayed it. To Kevin Wolf's credit, he was one of those members of the public who came to the meeting and argued that we needed to hold out for a small grocery store.

If we are truly moving toward with this model of smart design, we cannot simply pick and choose which aspects we like, it has to be an entire package. We need to retain the character of our city by encouraging mixed-use planning and demanding that our city leaders look into ways to allow the neighborhood grocery store to remain competitive against the giant that we have already allowed to move in.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Planning Commission Denies Petition to Put 3000 SF Store at West Lake

In May of 2006, Food Fair shut its doors for the last time. The small grocery store that had previously been Ray's, has been a vacant building ever since.

Failing for the past year and a half to draw a new retail market for the 22,000 square foot space, the owner has proposed a remodel to allow new kinds of business into the location. However, the current General Plan and zoning require that the center have a grocery store of no small than 15,000 square feet. This is based on a city General Plan requirement that each neighborhood have its own grocery store of at least 15,000 square feet.

The new proposal calls for a much smaller food store. As a result the owner has requested that the city rezone the space from 15,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet.

There are several bases for this request. First, the owner did not believe the space was viable for a grocery store given the population of West Davis, the fact that three stores had been there and failed, and the proximity of the larger Safeway at the Marketplace just a mile and a half down the road on Covell Blvd.

Second, the owner did not believe that he could draw another grocery store into that space. He argued that he tried to do so for the last year and a half. That this issue had come up in November of 2006, but at that time the Planning Commission attempted to have a 7500 square foot store come into that center.

According to city staff, neither the Food Co-op, Nugget, or Trader Joe's had interest in that spot and they therefore advocated for the change.

However, several members of the Planning Commission openly questioned the amount of due diligence on the part of the owner. Katherine Hess, the city's planning director at the very least defended the city's efforts to find a suitable business to take that spot which met the needs of the area.

For the Planning Commission this was a close call. However, there remained a commitment by a narrow majority not to abandon the ideal of a neighborhood grocery store. The majority again by a narrow margin felt that if they approved this change, this would be a permanent change and it could not be undone. In other words, if they built a 3000 square foot store, they would never be able to get a larger grocery store into the site. They felt that all avenues have not been exhausted.

And so by two 4-3 votes, the majority on the planning commission voted first to defeat a substitute motion that would have allowed the 3000 square foot store to come in while at the same time reserving another 3000 feet for another food type store. And then they voted to reject the petition by the property owner. Chair Greg Clumpner, David de la Pena, Rob Hofmann, and Mike Levy comprised the majority. While Terry Whittier, Kris Kordana and Vice-Chair Mark Braly all voted against the motion, favoring to accept the petition.

At this point, the applicant would have to appeal to the city council in order for his proposed project to go forward.

Commentary

As a longtime neighbor of this shopping center, for a long time I enjoyed the convenience of having a neighborhood grocery store, especially as a place where I could walk to, buy a few items without having to deal with traffic or huge crowds and go home. I did not have to set aside 45 minutes to get in my car, drive to Safeway, purchase my products, wait in line, and drive home again.

One of the arguments made in favor of retaining the store is the ideal of recreating the neighborhood grocery store where people really can bike or walk to the store. Having to drive and traverse crowds of people means that I rarely pick up one or two items at Safeway, usually I go and try to save it for one trip and if I forget something then it's a costly mistake in terms of time.

For the right store, run the right way, this does not have to be a dead location. Trader Joe's is a tragic example of this narrow-minded thinking. Moving into the University Mall is frankly not appealling to me. There are traffic issues that I believe would be exacerbated by having a popular store right in the heart of student commutes to campus.

There is the very real issue of the crows at University Mall. Unfortunately, during the fall and winter months that location is a virtual cesspool. It smells horrendous. It is dirty and disgusting. You park your car there for a few minutes and have to get it washed again because it is literally covered in droppings.

If Trader Joe's or a store like that came to the Westlake Shopping Center, it would thrive. They want to look at populations West of Highway 113, why limit themselves. People are not going to drive to that shopping center if they can shop at Safeway. But they might for something that they cannot get at Safeway.

For me this is simply not enough effort and not enough creativity. I see this as a similar issue to many in Davis where the owner does not do due diligence because they have found an easy way out and want the city to accommodate them. I applaud to Planning Commission for not bailing out the owner here.

Like other property owners in Davis, this owner had frankly let the shopping center fall into disrepair. The upkeep was horrendous. The building was not kept up well, the paint was old, it was not attractive. Now that he is trying to attract business in there, he has clearly put in a lot of money and resources to fix it up. They are doing extensive remodels to make the entire shopping center more attractive. I would like to see what happens once that is complete.

I applaud the planning commission for not bailing out the property owner here and allowing him to take the easy way out. Too often we have rewarded property owners for allowing their property to become run down and then we allow them to rebuild beyond the original intent or give them redevelopment money as almost a bail out.

What I would like to see is a concerted effort by the business owner and the city to find an appropriate tenant for that spot and I would like to hold them to that. No bail outs and no more excuses, find a grocer. I think there are grocers that would like that location we just have to try harder to find them. Otherwise we are simply abandoning the neighborhood grocery concept and frankly we are discouraging people from using alternative transportation to do their shopping and I think that's the exact opposite of what we want to do.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Planning Commission Nixes City Staff Supported Project

As I sat in to listen and observe the City Of Davis Planning Commission meeting, the thought repeatedly ran through my mind as to exactly what I was doing here. This was after all, a design review and approval for a minor modification to a private resident on J St in Old East Davis. What possible interest would people who are not neighbors have in the approval of an addition to a home?

As the evening went on, I think the same question must have occurred to each of the seven people who sit on the Planning Commission itself, but it would have taken the form of, how exactly did this project come forward to this point. However, bear with me here, because what you are about to see is shear incompetence on the part of city staff, yet again, in allowing a project to go forward without proper vetting by the City Attorney and despite serious concerns from neighbors.

The applicant in this case proposed constructing a 1,469 square-foot, two-story rear addition to an existing one-story residence in the Old East Davis Neighborhood. The proposed addition would be substantial and more than double the size of the residence. The addition would result in a floor area ratio of 43.4%.

One of the key factors here was a large 32” diameter Chinese hackberry that is located in the rear yard. The tree constrains development. To minimize potential impacts to the tree, the addition is pushed back 12 feet from the tree and results in a proposal to reduce the north side yard setback to 1’-8” for both stories. A new front porch would also replace the existing porch and new landscaping installed. A small second-story deck would be located on the south side elevation.

In other words, the applicant claimed that in order not to kill the tree, the addition had to be a certain distance away, this forced it to almost abut the south side of the property line. Only 20 inches would separate the northern edge of the home from a fence. Now think about 20 inches for a second and how narrow that is. City ordinance requires a five foot setback for the first floor and 10 feet for the second floor. The applicant in this case is asking for 20 inches on both floors and what is essentially for all intents and purposes a 20 foot high wall to be only 20 inches from the property line.

The staff report suggests as follows:

"Staff recognizes that the addition is sizeable and that the 1’-8” side setback is a substantial reduction in the setback requirements. Although it reduces the sense of openness on the north side, it preserves other useable areas in the yard and does not significantly impact the adjacent parking area. The Zoning Code gives the Planning Commission the discretion to reduce the side setback in the R-2 CD district in order to protect significant landscaping. The Planning Commission has discretionary approval over the project and may deny the project or request changes that it deems appropriate."

The staff report acknowledged that concerns were raised, and I focus on two of these concerns.

First:

"Concerns were raised that the reduced side setback would have visual impacts; that it would not be consistent with side yard setback generally found in the neighborhood; and that it could set a precedent for future projects. Additionally, concerns for maintenance, drainage, and fire issues in the side yard were mentioned. It was noted that other buildings in neighborhood had zero setbacks though they were generally accessory structures and/or single-story. The question was asked whether the addition could be placed further to the rear instead of the side."

This is a key point because the answer we are given is that the reason that it cannot be moved closer to the rear of the lot rather than the side is the tree and concerns that it will encroach on the tree.

"The R-2 CD zoning provides flexibility allowing the Planning Commission to reduce the side setback to protect historic landscaping."

The staff is claiming that the tree, a mature Chinese hackberry, represents historic landscaping and that building near the back could endanger the tree. The owner had an arborist testify to this effect, although it was unclear from that testimony how close they could actually get to the tree, the arborist appeared to suggest that it would be considerably closer than the current design.

The other complaint that was registered had to do with the size of the addition. For me, the tree issue was only part of the concern here, the other was, why they had to build such a large addition to begin with.

"There was concern that the addition was too large and that the mass and scale of the new structure would be out of proportion for the lot and the neighborhood and would have insufficient open space. Particularly, there was concern that it would overwhelm the nearby historic Tufts House.

The proposed addition is substantial and results in a FAR of 43.4% that exceeds the allowable FAR of 40% by approximately 200 square feet. The zoning allows an increase in the FAR with Design Review."

In the end, despite strong objections from neighbors, the staff recommended approval for this project:

"Staff believes the project is consistent with the DDTRN Design Guidelines and that the proposed design is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding structures and would not adversely impact the integrity of the adjacent historic resource. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project based on the findings and conditions of approval."

Immediately to the north is a newly built complex of two town homes and two single family detached homes that are at this point unsold. The real estate company, Coldwell Banker and Doug Arnold, claim that this project would devalue adjacent property.

"As currently proposed, the set back for the addition at 425 J Street is only 18 inches for both the first and second story. This will create a 20-foot vertical wall that will radically change the appearance and character of the backyard area and will devalue the four properties affected.

In particular, 437 J Street will immediately lose both light and openness due to the blockage of the sky and sun. The massive and imposing new addition closing off the sky and sun will dramatically alter both the appearance and usage of the side yard and patio and will seriously devalue this property."

Bill Kopper, represented the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Frank Skover before the Planning Commission. He presented key testimony arguing that the city had three criteria with which to grant an exception to the zoning ordinance that requires a five foot setback. The only one of these three criteria that was applicable without either a zoning change or a general Variance, was if the tree was part of an historic landscape. Mr. Kopper then went on to argue that this did not fall within the normal definition for historic landscape of which there are very few such designations in the city. Mr. Kopper successfully argued that a mature tree is not necessarily historic, nor could a tree in and of itself, be part of an historic landscape without some accompanying structure.

At this point, Mike Levy, one of the planning commissioners, asked City Planning Staffer Mike Webb point blank whether Mr. Kopper's interpretation was correct that this needed to be designated an historic landscape. Mr. Webb acknowledged that Mr. Kopper was correct. And when pressed, Mr. Webb acknowledged that unless it was deemed an historic landscape, they would have to rely on Variance procedures in order to grant such a setback.

Here is where this gets interesting. Mike Webb and Eric Lee, the planning staff, argued for approval of this project. They did so without getting a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether this could even be designated an historic landscape. This fact was brought up by Mr. Levy at this time and several other members of the commission wondered out loud how the planning staff would go forward with such a recommendation and more importantly how this process got this far.

Amazingly, for the next two hours, the meeting would continue with a variety of members of the public coming forward. One of the neighbors openly acknowledged that the reason for the addition was retribution for Mr. Skover building the "condos" that overlooked her property--from roughly 50 feet away.

In the end, staff worked very diligently in order to rescue this project giving the planning commissioners a number of different avenues short of outright denial. Even without the issue of the historic status of the tree which was by this point in severe doubt, the planning commission in general felt that this project was too large and the lack of setback very intrusive.

You see a very rare thing occur, by a unanimous 7-0, the Planning Commission voted down the proposal but instructed the city attorney to weigh in on this issue about the determination of the historic status, as much for future interest as for determining this project.

The question on many people's mind after the decision was finally reached late into the evening, is why the city's planning staff not only pushed for approval of this project but when it became clear that the Commission was opposed to it, continued to try to wear down the Commission into making a weaker ruling, a tactic that was actually partially successful and would have been more successful were it not for the resolve of several of the commissioners including Mr. Levy who caught on immediately that there was a legal problem and that Mr. Kopper's opinion had serous merit.

For the staff to knowingly recommend approval of this project, knowing the ordinance rules as Mr. Webb appeared to acknowledge, without seeking the opinion of the City Attorney is blatant incompetence. At the very least he wasted the time of the commissioners by failing to even check to see if this could be done in the first place and in fact if he had his druthers, the planning commission would have sent it back to the City Attorney and then possibly revisit this issue in the near future. Staff should never have come up with such a recommendation without checking on its legality and whether this tree fit the definition of an historic landscape.

In fact the suggestion at one point was that the owner could simply cut down the tree. The applicant claimed that city planner Eric Lee had told her that if she did, she could face a $40,000 fine--a preposterous claim that in fact, Mr. Lee though he hedged, never disputed.

For those wondering in the end, why this issue comes before us, it is because this is yet another example of the sheer incompetence of city staff. I have never seen a proposal that staff itself recommends be voted down unanimously but that is what happened here. You have staff failing to check to see if their recommendation was legal. You have staff pushing and carrying the water for a proposal despite strong and legitimate objections from neighbors. It was not even known whether the Planning Commission had the ability to weigh in on the judgment of the historic nature of the tree and the landscape.

In the end, the question from all involved is how this got to this point. It was a question openly asked by those on the Planning Commission. It was a question wondered through out the proceedings. While for most this is a small issue, this was extremely costly to the owner of the adjacent property who had representatives there to protect his investment in his project. And you have once again, city staff, failing to do their job in a thorough and proper manner, which ended up wasting the time of the Planning Commission and those who came before the commission. Something needs to be done about this issue in the future or the city will end up setting itself up for a very serious and expensive law suit.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Is Davis Ready for Taller and More Box-like Downtown Buildings?

While the county continues its assault on the borders of the city of Davis from the outside, Davis' own city council continues its assault on the core character of the city from the inside. Last month, the city approved the destruction of a number of older bungalows in the 3rd and B Street project in favor of three and four story condominiums.

Meanwhile, the council will be deciding on a 4 story, 65 foot building on 403 G Street that contains no setbacks and no stepbacks from the street. The ground floor will contain retail and restaurants and the upper floor offices and condominiums.

The specifics of this project include a giant box shaped building that will rise immediately off the street. It is designed to be a 21,910 four-story building. The project would either demolish or relocate the existing 2500 square-foot single-family residence.

However one feels about the project proposal itself, my own preference would be for a development that is more fitting with the character of downtown, that would include more setbacks and stepbacks from the sidewalk in addition to less of a box-like shape that will really destroy the character of downtown itself, there are actually much bigger consequences in the form of two zoning changes to all of downtown.

City staff has delayed any action taken on this item until a future date. The city council will hold an initial policy discussion on Tuesday and take any public comment. However, they will not vote on any proposal.

The following information is from the planning commission that met on June 27, 2007 to approve this project.

That staff report argues that the relative small size of this particular property, 6,030 square feet, creates a constraint on potential development of the site. Several nearby properties that have been redeveloped are two or three times larger than this property. Thus, in order to develop this site, the applicant is proposing a building that would exceed the allowable floor area ration (FAR) of 3.0. This projected would have a FAR of 3.6.

Instead of simply amending the FAR for this site, the city staff is looking much broader.

"In recognizing the potential development constraints on downtown lots that may prevent effective redevelopment consistent with City policies and objectives, the project also includes an amendment to the zoning ordinance for the C-C (Central Commerical) district."

The amendment to the zoning ordinance would allow for projects to reach a FAR of 4.0 "based on a project's ability to achieve additional downtown objectives."

The amendment would change the FAR which currently reads "the total floor area of a building shall not exceed three times the lot area" and will add:

"except that through Design Review approved by the Planning Commission the allowable floor area ration may be increased up to a maximum of four times the lot area on sites within the Core Expansion North Subarea..."

There would be three "bonuses" one for incorporating design and layout for ground floor retail and restaurant use, one for public plazas and spaces, provision of underground parking, or proximity to a parking structure, and one for saving trees.

This current space would not have a public plaza, so the maximum FAR would 3.75.

In addition to changing the FAR, it also changes the two-story Conditional Use permit (CUP) requirement. This would eliminate a CUP requirement for all structures over two stories. And it would enable the erection of buildings of up to five or six stories without a CUP.

The staff is arguing that the Design Review process,

"which is required for all new buildings or new additions provides an adequate and more appropriate mechanism for reviewing new projects and addressing any issues related to height or design."

So this proposal in essence does three things, first it building a huge box-like building at 403 G Street, second it enables future buildings to have an FAR of up to 4.0, and third, it will enable the building of much taller building without a CUP.

As with all of these changes, the key question is what do we want our downtown to look like. Drive to the corner of 5th and G, look at the new Chuck Roe Building that is being constructed there and decide whether that is the vision that you have for downtown. Perhaps it is and these kind of projects are fine.

Personally, I have seen some more innovative designs that can utilize more density and mixed uses of retail, office, and residential space in the Downtown Core Area. I think taller buildings that can incorporate plazas, open space, setbacks, and other devices will create a much better visual ambiance that fits with our existing Downtown Core Area. I have concerns about the vertical nature of this project that comes forth immediately from the sidewalk, that will act to close off and inhibit foot and bicycle traffic.

I simply do not believe that we are being creative enough in our usages with this project and am alarmed that the city is making changes that will seemingly make this sort of project more commonplace. Davis needs a discussion about what the future of the Downtown should look like. Densification is a good goal for saving land. But it should be done in a way that enhances rather than detracts from the visual and aesthetic nature of downtown and I simply believe based on the construction of the Roe Building, that this will not serve that sort of purpose.

---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