[OldNorth] (no subject)

[sheryl lynn gerety]

	From: 	  bwinterhalder at ucdavis.edu
	Subject: 	neigh borhood
	Date: 	July 8, 2004 10:01:31 PM PDT
	To: 	  winterety at sbcglobal.net
	Cc: 	  bwinterhalder at ucdavis.edu


Thursday, July 08, 2004

Dear Old North Neighbors:

	I attended last night's City Planning Commission meeting to 
participate in
discussion of items 8D and 8E on the agenda, the two high density
developments proposed for B Street.  These are projects designed by 
Maria
Ogrydziak for lots at 233 B and 315 B.  Both are located within the
University Avenue/Rice Lane Neighborhood.  The two properties belong
respectively to Ms. and Mr. Ogrydziak and to a Davis couple, the Aikens,
who retained Ms. Ogrydziak for help in developing and selling their 
property.

	The proposed developments would remove cottages and place four, 
separate,
2.5 to 3 story, single-family units and eight parking spaces on lots
subdivided from a single 7500 sq ft lot.  Staff recommended denial on
multiple counts of inconsistency with the CASP (Central Area Specific
Plan), PD-86 (local zoning) and the Neighborhood Design Guidelines.  On 
the
Guidelines alone, 13 and 14 inconsistencies were noted by the staff 
report, respectively,
for the two projects.  Aware of the staff recommendation, the owners 
asked
that the developments go forward under a procedure that allows the City 
to
create a special zoning district for an individual lot, thus voiding any
other of the policies.

	The staff report documented so many definitive inconsistencies that it
seemed implausible the projects would be approved.  Hence, they got 
little
attention from those of us in Old North and Old East who worry about 
this
kind of hyper-in-fill.  Unfortunately, letters written by several Old 
North
residents were neither mentioned nor summarized by the commissioners 
during
the course of the meeting.  Few of us attended.

	It was a hard, four hour lesson in the vulnerability of our 
neighborhood
to high-stakes building projects and well-organized, aggressive 
developers.
  Attending the meeting was a large contingent of project supporters,
organized down to the level of 'campaign buttons,' among them a group of
appealing young adults all of whom made emotional appeals for the 
chance to
live in downtown Davis in units exactly like those proposed.  To her
credit, Ogrydziak made a highly organized, 55-minute presentation 
extolling
the virtues of the projects and high density infill.  Among other
arguments, she made the case that if not this type of construction, then
the area would devolve into yet higher-density student rentals.

	Aside from the negative staff recommendation, Esther Polito, one other
individual and I were the only persons present to speak in opposition to
the first development that came up, 233 B.  We did so primarily by 
citing
the vulnerability of all historical neighborhoods if the Commissioners 
set
the precedent of over-ruling such a strongly negative staff report.  
After
hearing public testimony and holding almost no discussion amongst
themselves, the Commissioners voted 4-3 to do just that, overrule the 
staff
recommendation against the 233 B Street project.  It will be forwarded 
to
City Council with a favorable recommendation and one minor modification.

	After a brief break, everyone regrouped.  Because of the late hour and
because the projects were so similar, discussion on 315B was 
abbreviated by
all parties.  However, this time several Old East residents, surprised 
as
were all of us by the outcome of the first vote, also spoke in defense 
of
the Neighborhood Guidelines and staff interpretation of them.  There 
ensued
some further testimony and debate from the public, and this time, again
after brief discussion, the Commission voted 5-2 to support the negative
recommendation of the planning staff.

	There may be several reasons for the different decisions on two, almost
identical projects:  i) at least one Commissioner who changed his vote
noted that the 300 block of B street has a more homogeneous, historical
character, meaning that there is more there to protect;  and ii)
third-street may have provided a break-point for another Commissioner 
who
reversed his/her vote.  This is hard to discern because commentary was
sparse.  I speculate -- this is intuition only -- that it helped that 
the
opposition, still in a minority, remained resolute, and further, that
Commissioners themselves may have been surprised by the aggregate 
outcome
of the first vote, their second tally expressing a little bit of  
'buyer's
regret.'  The latter is made plausible if we recognize that a majority 
of
the seven Commissioners are newcomers who found themselves instantly 
faced
with a controversial issue over which there obviously was a lot of 
conflict.

	It may be that the next opportunity for Old North and Old East to 
weigh in
on these applications will be the City Council Meeting on July 27.
Meanwhile we need to meet and determine what our neighborhoods' 
positions
will be on the project/s.

	As the votes suggest, the Commissioners themselves were divided.  I 
think
two elements of this are especially important:  (a) awareness and 
respect
for the process that produced, and the intent of, the Neighborhood
Guidelines;  and (b) susceptibility to the siren call of "in-fill," the
word seeming almost so magical that one can't raise issues even of
appropriate degree.  With respect to the first, old-timers on the
Commission did speak of the importance of historical scale and 
character,
recalling the long process leading to the Neighborhood Guidelines.
However, some new-comers spoke as if they were an after-thought, about 
as
relevant as the Magna Carta, and antiquated by fresh ideas like those in
the proposals before them.  They had to be reminded at one point by a
colleague that the Guidelines were in fact the result of a recent 
process.
  With respect to the second point, for some Commissioners, in-fill, even
'super-sized' in-fill, appears to hold attractions that trump all three 
of
the CASP, PD-86 and Neighborhood Design Guidelines.  This despite Esther
Polito's strong warning of the hazards of piece-meal, single-lot zoning.

	With respect to these points, I think that we need to consider two 
things:
  first, we need to educate Commissioners, especially new Commissioners,
about our feeling of the importance of the community Guidelines to our
neighborhoods; and, second, we need a formal and well defined position 
on
in-fill.  It can't be a simple "No," it has to be a well-argued defense 
of
appropriate infill for neighborhoods such as ours.  We have to take the
initiative to define densification, even quantify it, that respects the
historical scale and character of our neighborhoods.  If we don't,
developers/investor/speculators will do it for us.

	My feeling, on leaving the meeting is that we now are much more 
vulnerable
to single-lot zoning.  The financial enticements are enormous for 
projects
approaching the density of those proposed for B street.  Commissioners 
were
aware they were setting significant precedents, and while some spoke
carefully in terms of the "B-Street transition zone," others spoke more
globally of a new vision for the core areas.  The precedent, partial for
the moment and subject to City Council action, to set aside zoning and 
the
Guidelines for single lot, four-unit, three-story infill should cause a
shudder in all of us who treasure the ambience of Old North, Old East or
the University/Rice Lane areas.

	Please take a minute to inform yourself about these two projects.  I 
have
copies of the basic staff reports and they can be viewed in the Planning
Dept Office and at other sites stated in the meeting agenda.  And please
attend your next neighborhood meeting to help us with this issue.

	Another point became evident last night: bodies willing to step up to 
the
podium count.  They count a lot, as does organization.  Letters to
Commissioners, however cogent or elegant, and I read a half dozen that 
came
to me via e-mail copy, appear to have had little effect.



Bruce Winterhalder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20040708/2cd50b43/attachment.bin>