[OldNorth] HRC meeting: my synopsis

[Dan Quickert]

disclaimers: 
-This is entirely from my limited and illegible notes, enhanced by what remains of my memory, then condensed to accommodate my inability to type at a rational pace :)
- I did not identify myself at the meeting as an officer of our fine organization


I didn't get the name of the woman who was the main presenter for the City - so in this piece I'll just refer to her as "the presenter". Ken Hiatt was there. Xandria was there but I did not notice her say anything, except responding to a question at the end. About 8 'public' were there.

There was the initial presentation; then discussion and questions from commission members, very polite and circumspect, not really getting at anything real - or at least not following up as I would have liked on questions that received unbelievable or evasive answers.

To questions about increase in population density of the area; of what the proposed Floor Area Ratios would be for the buildings; and what would be the actual buildout height; the answer from staff was "we haven't considered that at this stage, it's too early in the process".  Yet they have considered - even specified - that the Design Guidelines will have to be amended to accommodate the plan.

There was not much challenge for the proponents (as it appeared staff to be)
Until... they opened it up to 'the public'.

There were no speakers supporting either 'alternative' without significant alteration. Or altercation.

I addressed comments made by the presenter that seemed to perpetuate the myth about the guidelines inhibiting investment (again).

I then stated that alternative B was ludicrous and could only be explained as a ploy to make A look good - and that A is itself unacceptable based on height, scale, proportion etc; and not a fit border for our central park. I pointed out the unique character of the area relative to most areas of Davis; well actually I said it's one of the few areas in town that don't look like it got the standard developer crap dumped on it, and that these 'alternatives' are headed in that latter direction. I said more but that was the part that got the best reaction.

A couple of other speakers were eloquently less moderate than I in expressing the faults of the plans and in questioning the presenter and staff about the proposals and about the 'visioning' process itself. Tim Allis of Old East finished things out with a quiet reasoned approach that covered all the bases.

I should add though that in response to a couple of comments about process, councilmember Don Saylor emphasized that the process has been and continues to be very open.

After we had our say, the committee members got in another round and appeared to me somewhat more candid about their problems with the proposal

At the end, the HRC did not make a formal motion or statement (why?); but members in attempting to sum up basically expressed:
- B street does need some work, but:
- the proposed alternatives probably have too much business element and will conflict with downtown.
- concern about removing so many buildings that are in the historic inventory.
- strong concern about basically throwing out the design guidelines for this area.
and finally,
 "the two proposals are misguided"
 "we should start over, using the guidelines as a base and working up"

Then the chair asked staff (pointedly) do you get the sense of where we come down? (or words to that effect) and that was it.

Dan Q.