The Vanguard reported back on July 31 that the Davis Community Church has been proposing and has requested to be allowed to install a new universal access ramp. This would include an enlargement of the landing at the main entrance to provide a concrete patio for a gathering place, and new landscaping in order to hide the railings of the proposed ramp off of Fourth Street.
Staff is recommending council overturn the vote of the Historic Resources Management Commission, who twice voted to deny the changes. This would allow the installation of the third wheelchair ramp, new concrete patio, landing, steps and landscaping at the Fourth Street entrance of the Landmark property located at 412 C Street.
The proposed changes, requesting approval of a new accessible ramp, and extension of the existing concrete landing at the main entrance to the sanctuary on C Street, were rejected by the Historic Resources Management Commission on May 17, 2010 by a vote 4 to 3. The vote was consistent at that point with staff recommendation, based on the finding that a viable and ADA-compliant access exists on the property.
However, according to the staff report, after further discussion with staff, the applicant revised the proposal to reflect a reduced-size option. The HRMC was presented the revised proposal on July 19, 2010. It was denied by a vote of 4 to 2.
According to the staff report, “In denying the project both times, the Commission majority stated that the necessary findings to approve the project could not be made based on the responsibilities and stated charges of the Commission under City ordinances and regulations.”
The staff report notes that the HMRC acted appropriately and within their purview. “The technical grounds cited by the HRMC majority for the denial action are appropriate and in keeping with the ordinances, guidance and regulations under which it operates, and are consistent with similar decisions on other City Landmarks.”
However, staff notes that the council has “broader authority and purview.”
“Staff believes that the City Council may consider the applicant’s desire to provide additional access to all members at the front entrance, and a gathering place for socialization as legitimate grounds to deem the proposal appropriate and approvable,” the report continues.
While staff had previously recommended a scaled-down version of the project, they now recommend approval of the original proposal, based on several reasons.
First, “The Commission majority’s position that, had there not been a viable secondary access, the proposed project could be approved, leads staff to believe that approval of the proposal will not change the Landmark status of the property. Hence staff has recommended a condition requiring that any future alterations to the property would have to undergo careful evaluation of the cumulative changes.”
Second, “The applicant’s stated reasons for the proposal are reasonable and compelling, which are: 1) to provide equal access (ADA access) to the main entrance of the sanctuary, and 2) to provide a gathering space for events and after services socialization. While staff agrees with the HRMC that its charges do not permit it to support and approve the proposal, the City Council has a broader purview.”
Third, “The consensus of the Commission is that if the City Council is to hear the appeal, the applicant should request the original proposal.”
Commentary
However, in August we also celebrated the 20th anniversary of the passage of the ADA. The lesson that we learned in that celebration is the progress that disabled people have made in having full accommodations and access to be able to live as full a life as possible. From that standpoint, it makes sense to grant people access through the front of their place of worship. And while that may alter some portions of the building, it will leave the larger historic building intact but make it accessible and thus usable to all.
Staff has done due diligence on this project. The HMRC has done their job as well, which in part is to evaluate the project and determine how it fits within our historic preservation laws. They have applied those laws to this building and this project to the best of their ability.
However, I agree fully with staff that the council has a much broader purview. In this case, their purview is to attempt to preserve as much of the historic features that they can while at the same time adapting the building to modern usage and accommodating people who have physical limitations so they can have full use of their place of worship.
I fully expect that Davis City Council and the city of Davis, who participated in and sponsored the ADA 20th anniversary celebration in early August, to vote to expand access of the Davis Community Church so that each member can fully enjoy its use.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I agree. Not all that is historical is worthy of preservation, including historical practices that excluded or, both literally and figuratively, erected barriers to full participation by people with disabilities.
[i]”Not all that is historical is worthy of preservation …”[/i]
No one is talking about “all.” We are talking about one facade of one building, which happens to be one of the few Landmark buildings in Davis and one of our most valuable among them.
So this Gelber-notion that we are talking about all old buildings is hyperbolic and off the point.
[i]”… including historical practices that excluded or, both literally and figuratively, erected barriers to full participation by people with disabilities.”[/i]
There is full access to the Davis Community Church by a fully ADA compliant entrance on the C Street side, which most people who park near there use. It is in no way a back door or demeaning. It’s a very nice entrance. There is another compliant access entrance on the east side of the nave, though the church has blocked that off. There is no justification for this project based on the Americans with Disabilities Act; and any suggestion that this is about the ADA is incorrect.
[i]”Staff is recommending council overturn the vote of the Historic Resources Management Commission, who twice voted to deny the changes.”[/i]
By the way … the untold story in this is that staff was somehow corrupted in this process. Anyone who followed this issue closely knows something fishy went on, but why it happened is not clear.
The first time the DCC proposed its modification of the historic facade, staff came out foresquarely against the proposal. Staff stated all aspects of the Secretary of the Interior’s standards which are violated by this proposal, the fact that the building is already ADA compliant and based on all that staff recommended against this project.
Then the DCC came back with a slightly modified proposal. It had all of the same problems–all of them–that the previous proposal had. Yet staff suddenly found that the second proposal was satisfactory and therefore the project should be approved. Staff had no explanation for why the changes were suddenly okay.
My guess is that somewhat high up in the Emlen Administration was worried about politics. That is, they figured the public would favor this project, the members of the church who are influential in our community want this project and the city council would approve this proposal and thus staff decided it would be better for staff to be on the council’s good side and the good side of influential people in our community.
If that is what happened, it suggests something terribly nefarious about the city staff (on this issue and likely many others): they are not professionals, making dispassionate and technical decisions. Their decisions are just political pandering.
I know that comes as no surprise to people who generally dislike the city staff. I am not one of them. I have generally found the staff to be excellent. Yet this switcheroo really opened my eyes. It’s very disappointing. I would not have fretted at all to see the city council overturn the HRMC. They have to make a political decision based on a large array of factors, well beyond just historical preservation. The council is supposed to be political. The staff gets paid the big bucks, though, to act like pros. In this case, the staff disrobed and showed exposed their own corruption.
Mr. Rifkin:
There you go again. If you are going to respond to my posts, I ask only that you do not misrepresent what I say. No where did I say anything about “all old buildings.” “Not all that is historical is worthy of preservation” does not mean that nothing historical is worthy of preservation.
And I am fully aware that this has nothing to do with the ADA, which doesn’t apply here. It has everything to do with being an inclusive community, however. As to the statement that there’s “a very nice entrance” around the side of the building, I’m sure you wouldn’t have said the same about the “very nice” segregated drinking fountains that were provided in the South not all that long ago.
1. It will be ugly.
2. It would be easier for the reverend to say goodbye to the parishioners at the West entrance, guiding them out to the patio where they have a social gathering with coffee after the services, where there is already a ramp, and is the direction of where most people park their cars.
4. They could put in a temporary ramp that would accommodate wheel chairs on days of the services that could do the same thing.
5. This Church seems to like battles with the City. Is this a strategy to keep its congregation engaged?
[i]” I’m sure you wouldn’t have said the same about the “very nice” segregated drinking fountains that were provided in the South not all that long ago.”[/i]
Gelber, the West entrance is not “segregated.” Almost all visitors to the church and members of the church use it. Church members with no disabilities testified before our commission that they use it “every time” they park on C Street. Most of the available parking is on C Street. The largest portion of the church is on C Street. C Street is not a back-street in any way.
That does not change the fact that the 4th Street side is where the architect chose to put the front door. The architect knew what he was doing with his design. He designed his building in the mission style of the 1920s. I think we should respect his design and keep its one intact facade intact.
You are perfectly within your rights to want to destry the building’s historical integrity, Gelber. However, keep away from the bogus analogy to segregated drinking fountains. You don’t know a thing about history.
I’m not surprised that the guy who whose policies have done so much to harm the interests of the severely mentally ill is also the guy who wants to destroy a historical facade.
The personal attacks here are not justified (I thought this blog was supposed to stop that sort of thing?). There is a natural tension between historic preservation and ADA compliance/convenience/modern usage/desire to make changes for valid reasons. I don’t think either side is wrong here, because there is not necessarily a right or wrong in this situation, but a weighing of various considerations. It is not uncommon for commissions to disagree with staff/City Council. But commissions serve at the pleasure of the City Council. As the final arbitor, it is up to the City Council to adjudicate this one.
“But commissions serve at the pleasure of the City Council.”
I really hate this oft-used reminder – only used when the commission is at odds with the staff, or City Council or there is some sort of controversy (not unusual in Davis). It is dismissive. It demeans the work of the commissions and the commissioners.
Ryan Kelly: “I really hate this oft-used reminder – only used when the commission is at odds with the staff, or City Council or there is some sort of controversy (not unusual in Davis). It is dismissive. It demeans the work of the commissions and the commissioners.”
I would suggest that you read a commission handbook. Every commissioner is made aware at the outset that their commission serves at the pleasure of the City Council; the City Council may not follow the advice of its commissions; the City Council is the final arbitor when it comes to setting policy and making decisions with respect to the city. Which makes sense, since commissioners are merely appointed by the City Council, whereas City Council members are elected and answerable to John Q. Public. To say that commissions serve at the pleasure of the City Council does not demean commissions, it just recognizes the heirarchy of power that is inherent in our form of city gov’t.
That said, there are various ways in which commissions can work behind the scenes to effect the outcome on an issue. Initially there was huge resistance to the Carlton Plaza Assisted Living Facility by the city. But that all changed when the Senior Citizens Commission took this project on as desirable for seniors. We fought a very successful campaign to get this project approved, behind the scenes politics notwithstanding. Commissioners can be very powerful in their own right. Will they win every battle they take on? No. Can they win some battles despite heavy opposition? Yes.
Maybe a worthy question to ask before the CC (I am sure) approves this tonight, is: Will the change impact the designation of landmark or historical significance? I am sure I am using the incorrect language here but perhaps Rich can enlighten me on it. bottom line: what is the long range impact of this change to one of the last landmark buildings? Thanks.
Elaine, It’s the reminder that is dismissive and demeaning.
[i]”There is a natural tension between historic preservation and [s]ADA compliance[/s]/convenience/modern usage/desire to make changes for valid reasons.”[/i]
I agree with this (if you strike out the ADA compliance, which does not apply), and it is up to the city council to weigh these factors and make its decision. That is the political process; and the council was democratically elected for this purpose.
Staff, on the other hand, at least should be honest. They should not change their opinion of the city’s ordinance due to public pressure.
The HRMC certainly serves at the will and behest of the City Council. It’s impossible in this case to say we did not serve the council’s interest. First, they have not yet overturned our decision. And second, they expect us to uphold the ordinance for them, which is exactly what we did.
SODA : [i]”Will the change impact the designation of landmark or historical significance?”[/i]
It won’t change its “landmark” status, because that status is designated on the building by the council. It might cause it to lose its eligibility to be listed on the California Registrar of Historic Places.
In my opinion (and the opinion of our commission, which includes a number of historical professionals–including our chairman, Rand Herbert), the change will negatively affect the landmark’s historical integrity. That’s the reason we rejected the application.
That alone will never (and should never) stop the council from doing what it thinks is best for our community and our community’s heritage. However, loss of historical integrity means a loss of historical significance.
[i]”… what is the long range impact of this change to one of the last landmark buildings?”[/i]
One other thing to note about the Community Church: its historic integrity has already been lost or severely compromised on its west, north and east sides. So as we allow the one side with its integrity intact, the south side, to be degraded, we are starting to approach a point where the building (architecturally) no longer will resemble what it looked like in 1927.
That ultimately is the test: if Davis people of yesteryear were transported to the present and they would recognize it as the building they knew, it has integrity. I believe the church still has enough historic integrity to be considered a community asset. That will disappear if we as a community don’t care for our resources.
The City Council voted last night to approve the Church’s appeal, and allow them to go ahead and build the ramp at the front entrance. Quite frankly, having seen the pictures of before and the projected ramp to be built, I’m really not quite sure what all the fuss was about. The ramp really does not change the look of the front entrance much at all, at least from a layman’s point of view. Frankly, I think the proposed changes will actually make it look better.
Also, there was some very compelling testimony by church members for the ramp at the front entrance. When people enter the front, they enter into the sanctuary itself. If people enter by the side, they enter a small antechamber. Also, for funerals, weddings and other social events, it would seem important to make sure everyone is included at the front of the church. As one public commenter noted, what do we tell a person in a wheelchair attending a funeral or wedding – we’ll meet you at the side of the building after we have commiserated/socialized with everyone at the front of the church?
It really is about inclusion, which is where I think the HRMC missed the boat. Listening to both sides (the head of the HRMC was there to defend his commission’s decision), I did not find the HRMC’s position very persuasive. As for city staff changing their position, there is nothing wrong with this. If evidence can be brought to city staff indicating their initial stance on an issue was incorrect, isn’t it more appropriate for them to concede the error, than to stick doggedly to an argument that no longer seems to have merit in the face of countervailing considerations?
Everyone appreciated the efforts of the HRMC, and understood the commission was carrying out its mandate. But the HRMC must realize that sometimes they are not the final arbitors, and there may be other competing condsiderations that must take precedence in the community. This is one where I think both city staff and the City Council got it right.