Tag Cloud
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Neighbors, developer reach agreement on contentious project
by Melissa Corker, published on July 29, 2011 at 9:57 PM
Storyline: Politics
Loading images
City Planning commissioners gave the go-ahead Thursday to a residential building project at 24th and T streets that has been a source of contention between the developer and residents for months.
The proposed two-building, five-unit residential apartment complex met opposition from neighbors almost as soon as it was proposed by developer Andrea Rosen last September, and the project has since undergone numerous changes in both concept and design.
“It’s been over 10 months and staff put up with a lot of twists and turns on the route and destination,” Rosen said. “But I think this is an exciting, well-designed project, and it will add value to the neighborhood for decades to come.”
Initially, the project was designed to be a six-unit condominium plan, but neighbors didn’t want a site that previously held a single-family home to become the site of a multi-unit building.
In a October 2010 letter to Councilman Rob Fong, which was forwarded to the planning commission, more than 20 nearby residents expressed their opposition to Rosen’s plans.
“We value the quiet neighborhood, single family homes from a specific era and feel there is no need to add additional multi-unit housing in these areas,” the letter stated. “We strongly oppose this multi-unit project.”
According to a survey submitted to the planning commission, there are 156 multi-family units and 13 single-family homes in the four blocks surrounding the project site.
A group of neighborhood representatives from the Newton Booth-Poverty Ridge area where the project is proposed to be built expressed their concerns in a Jan. 9 letter to Rosen.
The group said it hoped Rosen would make adjustments to her development plan, including reducing the project from six to three housing units, creating a pitched-roof structure instead of the flat-roof style originally designed, adding front porches and providing off-street parking for all units.
“Our neighborhood wanted to discuss and negotiate the number of units, which we felt had a direct relationship on the scale and design,” said William Robertson, one of the neighborhood representatives, in an email to the planning commission.
Another contentious aspect of the project revolved around the specific design of the building.
The original design was a three-story, flat-roofed, courtyard-style design. Neighbors said in opposition letters to the commission that such a design would not “fit” with the architectural styles of other homes in the area, calling it an “eyesore.”
“Many residents have misgivings regarding poorly conceived developments from decades past,” said Alan LoFaso, a 24th Street resident, in a Feb. 9 letter to the planning commission. “Many place great weight on the value of preserving period homes to the greatest extent possible.”
Neighborhood representatives said they wanted the finished project to be in an architectural style “of good faith integrity that is appropriate to the immediate surrounding neighborhood” – an area that includes Tudor cottages, Craftsman bungalows and Depression-era brick duplexes.
Planning commission members disagreed.
“While design is subjective,” said commission chairman Joseph Yee, “I feel there is a concept of compatibility, and not necessarily mimicking what’s all around.”
Yee said that compatibility adds to the diversity and the vibrancy of a neighborhood.
“I do not believe that every structure in the neighborhood needs to be a replication of what preceded it.”
Yee said that he hopes the final message is not that, in order to get consensus and approval, applicants are limited to a design palette “appropriate” for any one community.
“I think it would make our city a less vibrant and interesting place if it becomes cookie-cutter,” Yee said.
Commissioner Michael Mendez agreed, adding, “Diversity and compatibility are both appropriate.”
After months of discussions – at times amicable and at others tense – Rosen and the neighborhood representatives came to an agreement for a revised plan.
The new plan included two structures with a total of five housing units, pitched roofs on both buildings, porches with craftsman-style railings for each unit and additional elements to make the structures more aesthetically compatible with others in the area.
The agreement also outlined opportunities for continuing discussion between concerned residents and Rosen to maintain “good faith” between all parties.
Final decisions regarding construction and purchase of all items, however, remain with Rosen, according to the agreement.
“What you don’t see in the neighborhood agreement is how tough it was to achieve,” said Rosen. “The result is a complete redesign in concert with the neighborhood’s wishes.”
Robertson agreed, telling commissioners that one of the “remarkable” things to come out of the lengthy and contentious negotiations between residents and the developer is that it fostered a feeling of “respect as a neighborhood” for the residents.
“This has really been kind of a triumph of community action,” Robertson said. “Yeah, nerves were frayed along the way, but I think we have a project that everyone is happy with.”
After reviewing the project plans and hearing from the public, planning commission members unanimously voted to approve moving the project forward.
Rosen will now continue to the next stage of the development process when the 24th and T street project is considered by the city Design Review Commission. A date has not yet been set for that meeting.
Read the staff report and design plans here.
Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follw her on Twitter @MelissaCorker.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
- Neighborhood resident 27th and T.
This controversy was never solely about design. It was never solely about smart growth infill. It was always about process and the politics of development in this city.
On a block that was later shown to have a density of 48 (the maximum density per the general plan being 50), a 1940's single family home located on a central corner was demolished without notification to the neighborhood and a 6-unit apartment building premised on "smart growth" principles was proposed with a style that was not just atypical, it was dominant. The developer who in her own neighborhood was an activist who fought a development near her home, oddly took umbrage that neighbors in our area did not embrace her project like primitives welcoming a missionary bringing the "good word" of smart growth infill. She might have observed that describing a neighborhood as "blighted" in your proposal is not exactly winning hearts and minds. Instead, she chose to focus on the fact that the big developer with whom she had previously battled had contacted the neighbors offering advice. And she waged a PR battle with us as though this were a continuation of that fight.
In this way our neighborhood became a battleground on which older, larger issues about development and city policy were fought, many of which had nothing to do with us. It got very ugly at times. But because a handful of neighbors were able to harness neighborhood outrage and guide it into a constructive process of negotiation, because they were able to stay the course and work toward a solution despite endless assaults and distractions by the developer and other self-interested parties, these neighbors were able to do what very few neighborhoods have accomplished: they reached an agreement. They made the system work. And I am very proud of them. A developer gets to build her development and our neighborhood likes the project.
The accomplishment this represents was evident in the grateful comments of the Planning Board. The process revealed significant holes in City policy regarding implementation of the general plan that we could have used to derail this project for years, as the developer herself had done as an activist. But we did not. We continued to compromise and work toward a solution.
I have lingering annoyance toward the so-called "smart growth" community, who despite the successful outcome of this agreement, still publicly decried it as a "failure" and felt the need to insult us and suggest to the Planning Board that in the future they should ignore the concerns of neighborhoods (or so said one speaker in particular, ironically a resident of Carmichael--that bastion of smart growth practices).
I understand to some degree the hostility that the "smart" growth clique exhibits. They have fought for many years just trying to get the City to listen to them. They have needed to establish a "circle the wagons" mentality to protect their ideology.
But I'm reminded of a line from a movie: "Are you such a loser that you don't know when you've won?"
The smart growth community needs to un-circle their wagons and recognize that you don't fight neighborhoods--you win them over. And you work with them. They need to learn from the leadership of one of their own--Mike McKeever, of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Though he supported the original proposal, he still gave his time and his talent, without compensation, to mediate the negotiations between neighbors and developer. Because of Mike McKeever, and only because of him, the neighborhood still has faith in the principles of smart growth.
It's something for many in the smart growth advocacy community to think long and hard about. Because maybe, just maybe, not everyone who isn't in your clique is an enemy. Maybe arrogance and condescension isn't necessarily your path to success. I'm just tossing that idea out there. I could be wrong.
I'm the president of the Newton Booth Neighborhoods Association. And we would love to work with you. Neighborhoods are not your adversaries unless you make them so.
Seems to me like it would be a great addition.
Do I think this is the work of an incompetent? No, for Christ's sake. And I didn't present it that way. Your comment about "analysis" is naive, I think, because it ignores that the simple decision of which quotes one includes and which quotes one doesn't include steers the direction of a story. There is no "straight" reporting in journalism. There are only attempts to be straight. That's just a fact of the job.
Certainly this was better written than the piece that appeared in the Sac Bee a while back on this subject, which was fed to the writer by the developer (this by her own admission) and so slanted and misleading that despite its original claim to be a "straight" piece of journalism, it was shifted to the op-ed page. Does that make me touchy? Of course it does.
If you guys are feeling a need to defend Ms. Corker against an attack on her reputation, then you've grossly overreacted and worse, missed my point. Yes, I do have an agenda. Which is why I didn't write an article, or lobby for one to be written, but entered my comments here instead.
Aside from that, I deeply regret sending out a larger message that people should work together to reach solutions and that neighborhoods should have a voice in their communities. Clearly that was inflammatory of me. Who knew?
If you wish to talk about people forcing things, consider the senseless demolition of a 1940's moderne home being forced on neighbors without notification of any sort, when there are many vacant lots one street over in need of infill. Now there's a flattened roof for you.
Regardless of what griping the smart growth clique offers, this is smart growth. The block's density is 48. The general plan recommends 50. The developer is building 3 additional units above that. It is a win for all parties involved. You guys need to recognize that this is a victory for all so that you can continue with your legitimately noble mission and get neighbors to work with you. Stop complaining and don't make people like me want to build a yurt on 70 acres and trade my Prius in for a Hummer just to spite you.
And I see that your comments are not an attack on Melissa Corker's work, which was solid and comprehensive, given her very short acquaintance with the subject. Those close to the story see the endless complications and nuances of it, which is the beauty of this forum: We can start the conversation, you can continue it.
Very pleased with this whole story and conversation.
I supported the earlier Art Deco inspired design--the building looked good and the roof line wasn't any higher than the adjoining buildings. While there isn't necessarily a "plethora" of nearby flat-roofed 1930s buildings in the neighborhood, there are several examples which were cited by the developer and the designer within a couple of blocks. But the new Craftsman-inspired design is fine too--there are a few similar examples of Craftsman-designed two-story apartment buildings in the central city, like the ones at 25th and P or 16th and P, which use an Arts & Crafts design in a multi-unit context. The loss of one unit isn't that big of a deal if it settles disputes and gets the project built.
I based my support on the project itself, not the demolition of the previous house--which, from the sounds of things, could have been handled better by the property owner. There are enough infill lots and underutilized properties in the central city to double our population without demolishing a single building--rushing to demolish a property has led to more than a few big empty lots that will just sit vacant for years to come, like at 3rd & Capitol or 18th & S. But the building was already demolished by the time this project came up for review--I wrote a letter of support based on the merits of the project itself, not the consequences surrounding it.
But I don't blame the neighborhood for having their concerns, and voicing them loudly enough to get heard at city hall. Recent efforts at "streamlining" city government resulted in a breakdown of communication and early notification between the city, developers and neighborhood groups--which means that neighborhoods end up in reactive mode all the time, having to respond to things coming at them rather than learning of plans in advance. The lack of clear guidelines for infill in historic districts, and the backlog of historic neighborhoods that haven't been properly assessed and designated (primarily for lack of staff and city resources, not lack of will or eligibility) also means neighborhoods have to take a defensive posture. Obviously the city is going to be broke for a while--which means neighborhoods have to step up and be proactive.