The Davis Community Church has been proposing and has requested to be allowed to install a new universal access ramp. This would be 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.
As was explained to me, at the present time the church has members who are not able to access their church because they cannot get in and out of the front door. This includes a number of elderly parishioners whose mobility is limited and other members who are also wheelchair-bound. In addition, the church wishes to increase the size of the front patio to enable the reverend to stand away from the door and greet the congregants. The access ramp would land on the new patio.
According to an HRMC staff report from May, “The subject site has a long planning and historic resource history.” It continues, “The Davis Community Church originated as the Davisville Presbyterian Church. The church was housed in two locations prior to construction at its current site in 1926. Additions were made in 1960 and subsequent additions have been made since then, but the Fourth Street entrance façade remains mostly intact and retains integrity. The property was designated a Landmark on July 25, 1984 by the City Council.”
In May, City Staff said that there are options that could be considered by the church, which might not have significant adverse effect on the Landmark building. “One such option could be a re-positioning of the location of the proposed ramp to the immediate front of the building wall (taking care not to damage the wall) and screening it with shrubbery as well as removing the proposed 9.5 x 13 feet concrete patio intended for a gathering place.”
According to the zoning ordinance, “the HRMC is to consider the proposed project relative to architectural style, design, arrangement, massing, texture, painted and unpainted surfaces, materials, and any other factors that do not adversely impact character-defining features that date to the resource’s period of significance when acting on a COA application.”
The Commission would approve a COA under three specific circumstances:
“(A) the proposed work does not result in substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource or its exterior character-defining features, and
(B) the proposed project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and
(C) the proposed work, if proposed for an individual Landmark located within the boundaries of a designated Historic or Conservation Overlay District, shall be consistent with, and supportive of the goals and policies of the adopted District Plan.”
In May, “Staff does not believe that the Commission can make the above findings.” As such the Commission voted 4-3 to oppose the project. The commission does not have final say here: “Actions of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council.”
On July 15, 2010, city staff brought a revised proposal back to the HRMC. According to the staff report, there was a scaled-back project. And this time staff supported it. “Staff believes that the scaled-back project is appropriate. The reduced project will result in the following: 1) extension of the existing concrete patio landing by approximately 7.5′ by 13.3′ as opposed to the previous proposal of 10′ by 13.3′; and 2) moving the proposed ramp 2′ closer to the building; thus providing 18′ in place of the previous 16′ lawn area. This compromise project is in substantial compliance with one of the two options that staff recommended previously.”
According to city staff, “The request remains, [for] approval of Certificate of Appropriateness #2-09 to allow installation of a new universal access ramp, an enlargement of the landing at the main entrance to provide a concrete patio for a gathering place, and new landscaping to screen the railings of the proposed ramp off of the Fourth Street elevation.”
The proposed project will involve:
1) Extending the existing concrete landing by approximately 7’ 6” by 13’ 4” to provide an enlarged patio to accommodate socialization and events after church service or other events, such as weddings (previous was 10’ by 13’ 4”);
2) Installation of new concrete steps that will connect the landing with the existing church walk;
3) Construction of a new concrete universal access ramp approximately 32’ 4” long. The ramp will extend westward from the new landing and connect with an existing private
paved walkway on the church property that connects to the public walk, and will be mostly screened by new shrubs to be planted; and
4) Addition of metal railings and handrails in keeping with ADA regulatory requirements, which will be compatible with the existing metal detailing and color.
5) Installation of a three square foot welcome sign in replacement of a removed deteriorated sign; no details provided on this signage.
However, once again, the commission voted 4-3 to oppose the revised project, with no changes to the voting make up.
As was explained to me, there are several reasons for the vote. First, there is the belief that access already exists on the side of the building. It is not through the front door, but it is reasonable access in and out of the church.
Furthermore, the argument is that the ramp and the concrete patio on the Fourth Street side would significantly change the appearance of the historical church and it is not absolutely necessary. The front entrance that now exists is the same as it was 85 years ago when the church was built. The materials which compose the front entrance are the historic materials. The proposal would destroy those historic materials. The new concrete patio will alter the essential form of the entrance to the church, and if removed later, the historic integrity of the entrance cannot be recovered.
Commentary
My estimation is that this issue will go before council and that council will ultimately approve this project. While I am supportive of historic preservation in this community, I opposed both the changes to the Anderson Bank Building and the changes to the Tank House over on Second Street for those reasons. However, I am also a strong support of ADA.
While I appreciate that there may well be side access for those who are disabled, I think part of the point of ADA which will be celebrated this morning at 9 am at the Central Park, is that disabled people do not need to go to the back of the bus in this country and certainly not in this community.
I do not believe in this case that an Historic Building is going to be destroyed or even devalued because we have made it more accessible to those who are aging or otherwise disabled. If that is the case, then we would need to cease its current usage. I think we need, however, to encourage the continued use of historic buildings and if we do, we have to accept the fact that we need to be more compliant with 21st-century standards.
It is not a cut-and-dried historic issue. One person pointed out to me that the very fact there was a split vote among the HRMC members on whether to allow the project demonstrates this fact.
I think DCC should be applauded for trying to accommodate their aging and otherwise disabled membership and allowing them to utilize the front of the facility as anyone else would be able to do.
Moreover staff has done its due diligence here. The first proposal was apparently more abrupt in its changes, however, staff continued to work with the applicant on a compromise and is now willing to sign off on it. The HRMC has specific considerations to take into account, with regards specifically to the issue of Historical Status. They did their job. However, council has a much broader charge here, and therefore can consider more fully the overall issues of accessibility. Therefore, I hope that the Davis City Council, when they get this item, is willing to move forward and approve these changes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There is also a constitutional issue here. And no, not separation of Church/State. The arrogance that citizens, based on their belief systems, can dictate how an entity deals with its real property. I believe that is a “taking” which, if it is warranted by a greater public benefit, deserves compensation. In this case, the religious community is trying to do the right thing for its members, and, in my opinion, the public at large. If the historical commission cannot see the “big picture”, and do the right thing, perhaps they should be disbanded.
I disagree with hpierce. HRMC is an advisory group that is there to consider one factor only, the considerations of historical sites. That’s their job, it’s very narrow, and the city has the ability to overrule them. But I think that the HRMC is valuable even if they are not right on every issue. In other cases, I think they were spot on. But in this one, I think there is a broader consideration that the city can rightly take. I see no problem with the HRMC taking a contrary view. I don’t see the need to disband them simply because they take a narrow view, which btw, is what they are supposed to do.
I respectfully disagree with you David, as to the concept that commissions should have a completely narrow view. Some would say that the passage of ADA was a “historic event” and therefore balancing the historic facade with the legacy of providing equal access for future generations is completely consistent with historical values. The CC tends to be ‘political animals’ and it is hard to justify going against a commission who you have appointed members to. Should we all have a narrow view of ‘what is important to me’? I agree that the Parks & Rec Commission should not be dictating (recommending?) historical significance, but I see nothing wrong with citizens bringing their entire experience to bear in making recommendations. Deed restrictions where people “of color” were excluded from owning, occupying houses in Davis was prevalent even into the late 40’s, early 50’s (unless they were servants)… to be historically “accurate”, would you advocate we push the legislature, etc. to overturn the fair housing act(s)? SME’s (subject matter experts) in my opinion should still retain all their knowledge/judgments when rendering opinions.
That’s certainly a fair debate point. For example, on the recent Verona project, the Parks and Rec commission weighed in only on the issue of whether there should be a park, the Finance and Budget only weighed in on the issue of fiscal impact. The council has moved in that direction. If people are interested in that particular debate, I’m interested in hearing the various sides.
Perhaps we are somewhat in agreement… as a staff member, commissioner, whatever, we should FOCUS on our expertise, but never IGNORE other values as we make recommendations, etc.
I agree that commissions should not take an extremely narrow view. I know on senior housing issues, the Senior Citizens Commission would take into consideration how senior housing development might effect younger folks. From a political perspective, it is smart for a commission to take a wider view, because the commission is more likly to get a proposal it makes to the City Council approved that way. Just because commissioners are focused on one facet of an issue (having to do with the commission’s mission statement), does not mean they have left their common sense outside the commission door…
That said, I would be curious to hear from someone on the HRMC, so we could get their perspective…
[i]”I think part of the point of ADA which will be celebrated this morning at 9 am at the Central Park, is that disabled people do not need to go to the back of the bus in this country and certainly not in this community.”[/i]
Back of the bus?
This issue actually has [b]nothing[/b] to do with ADA compliance. The inspiration for the church to request this change is not because their Landmark building is out of compliance with the ADA. In fact, the building is currently compliant.
The church presently includes not one, but two fully ADA compliant entrances. One on the west side of the church, which is the entrance that MOST able-bodied parishioners use as their primary entrance to the church. Is that the back of the bus? The fourth street side is the historic front entrance. However, most able-bodied parishioners do not now enter or exit from that side of the building.
The other handicap accessible entrance is on the east side of the church, very near the 4th Street door. It is not well used by anyone, because the church decided to fence it off for a children’s play area.
[i]” once again, the commission voted 4-3 to oppose the revised project, with no changes to the voting make up.”[/i]
The first vote was 4-3. The second was 4-2. (One member was absent at the second vote and all others voted the same.)
Rich: sorry misinterpreted your letter on the votes.
[i]” I would be curious to hear from someone on the HRMC, so we could get their perspective…”[/i]
David contacted me a few days about this and I explained the decision to him in full. In this report, he did not quote any of the reasons why this decision was made. To fill you in, I will excerpt my letter to David:
The DCC building is a City of Davis Landmark. As such, any time the members of the church want to alter its exterior, they have to come before the HRMC for approval.
Recently, the DCC applied to alter its front entrance on 4th Street. As you can imagine, any significant changes to that portion of the façade risks harming its historical fabric.
Their proposal is to build a new, concrete front patio which would project out from the building (10 feet) about half way from the church to the 4th Street sidewalk; and to build a new handicap access ramp parallel to the church, near its 4th Street windows, which would provide access to the new concrete patio.
… there are two complicating issues.
First, there already is handicap access on the C Street side of the church. …
The second, and more important historical question, is this: Would the creation of the ramp and the concrete patio on the 4th Street side significantly change the appearance of the historical church? And if it would, is it nonetheless absolutely necessary?
… the changes requested by the church violate three of the ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The HRMC is guided by that federal document. These were the three that the commission and the city staff believed were in conflict with this proposal:
[i]”2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.” [/i]
The new ramp and the new concrete front patio will alter the historic feature of the front entrance; and because the patio will be so close to the street, the spatial relationship which characterizes that entrance will be noticeably altered. …
[i]”9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.” [/i]
The front entrance that now exists is the same as it was 85 years ago when the church was built. The materials which compose the front entrance are the historic materials. The proposal would destroy those historic materials. They are not in perfect shape, now. However, they are not so bad that destroying them is justifiable from a historic perspective.
[i]”10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” [/i]
The new concrete patio will alter the essential form of the entrance to the church and if removed later the historic integrity of the entrance cannot be recovered. The church now has its historic integrity and this change will damage the Landmark building’s integrity forever.
… I can appreciate that the council has other factors to consider beyond historical integrity. However, I think our commission did its job as the law required us to do by denying that request, reasonable though it would have been but for the questions of historical preservation.
Actually, as the pastor, I can attest that most able-bodied parishioners DO enter and exit from the front doors on Fourth Street, not only on Sundays, but also when we have more public and community-wide services, like weddings and memorial services.
The side ramp is extremely difficult for those using wheelchairs or walkers, in part because they can’t park in a position where there is level ground by the vehicle. It is dangerous. Some have given up and park way up by the Hattie Webber Museum and then have to wheel or waddle with their walker all the way down the block to get in the side door. Often in the rain.
The east side ramp was built long AFTER (not before) the children’s playground was fenced in so that disabled adults and children could get from the sanctuary to the education wing. It was never meant to serve as an entrance to the sanctuary from the street. Winding through the playground and fiddling with the double-latched gate one must go through – double latched to keep the children inside – make it awkward and arduous.
We are talking about a very minor change here. The design of the ramp and landscaping insure that the look of the front of the sanctuary will not change substantively. In fact, in the mock-ups one can hardly tell the difference in before and after. Yet it will make a huge difference to the disabled.
ADA is a standard. Being hospitable is a value we hold and seek to live out in making these changes.
[i]”The side ramp is extremely difficult for those using wheelchairs or walkers, in part because they can’t park in a position where there is level ground by the vehicle.”[/i]
This issue was outside of the purview of the HRMC. It has to do with how C Street is crowned and how the street meets the sidewalk, not the adequacy of the ramp on up to the church. In fact, the ramp on that side is fully ADA compliant. Insofar as this is a public policy problem, it needs to be addressed by public works and perhaps the commission which deals with safe streets.
[i]”I can attest that most able-bodied parishioners DO enter and exit from the front doors on Fourth Street”[/i]
It is possible I misunderstood the testimony before our commission. However, my recollection was that an (able-bodied) parishioner, responding to a question from a commissioner, said that most churchgoers park on C Street. The commissioner then followed up, asking if the people who park on C Street enter the church from C Street or 4th Street? The response was C Street. I concede I may have misconstrued that testimony. Nonetheless, there is nothing about the C Street entrance — which our entire commission used to enter the church on a visit — that is unwelcoming or second class or demeaning. It’s a fine entrance and it has full handicap access.
One more important point: My belief (and I am sure of all HRMC commissioners) is that if this were not a City Landmark which is being altered, the addition of a new ramp and patio would be no issue. But it is a City Landmark. It does embody our City’s history. As such, it is a public good. And it is our charge as a community to care for and protect our public goods, much like we do what is necessary to care for public property and the common air. It’s not quite as simple to think of this building as private property, because of its historical importance. The analogy is with an industrial plant. It does not have the right to do everything it wants on its own private property, if the result is spewing pollutants into our common atmosphere. I am not saying that the result of the changes proposed by the DCC to the building will be toxic. But they will harm an important representation of Davis history. And if we don’t take care of our history, we will lose it.
Rich: from my perspective, I like historic buildings, I’m okay if some features are altered to make it them usable because what I do not want is an artifact that has no real use. Being out at the parade today and listening to how ADA has changed people’s lives, I think we need to strive for full accessibility and I applaud DCC being proactive on this. Yes they are technically compliant, but it’s nice to see that they want to be truly accessible.
[quote]David: “HRMC is an advisory group that is there to consider one factor only….”[/quote] Two problems here: 1. If a commission can deny a request and the Council can overrule a denial if the requestor appeals, the commission is a decision-making group, and 2. Why would a commission be able to deny anything after considering only one factor involved?
[quote]Rich: “I think our commission did its job as the law required us to do by denying that request, reasonable though it would have been but for the questions of historical preservation.”[/quote] How can DCC have much [s]faith[/s] confidence in a judgment call made by a bare majority of the HRMC? (Are the four of you “correct” re. the original proposal violating DOI standards, [u]or[/u] are the other three “correct” that it was not in violation? If the HRMC can’t come to agreement, shouldn’t the decision automatically go to a higher authority? What would happen if Elaine’s “common sense” Sr. Citizen’s Commission approved this to meet our seniors’ needs, and the four of you continued to hold out?)
My DCC experience is that while a majority of folks ENTER from the west, more LEAVE through the main, southern entrance in order to join the ministers at the front door. Except, of course, that doesn’t include [u]any[/u] of the frail who cannot navigate the stairs–100% of them must leave the “back way” through which they had to enter. I think it’s admirable that DCC is wants to make the front entrance meet ADA standards; it shouldn’t be a “complicating factor” that the building is compliant because of existing side-entry ramps.
We put up with a limited annual quota of silly decisions by the City Council, because we elected them and can send them packing. But, unelected city commissioners should have fairly restricted powers over Davis citizens and their property. And we shouldn’t have to appeal to get your split decisions overruled by the CC. If the HRMC really were an advisory body, how you make your decisions wouldn’t matter.
I agree that this issue arises only because the church has become a City Landmark.
As to the C Street vs. Fourth Street entry, all I know is that I have a better view than anyone of people coming in and out of the sanctuary. And it is Fourth Street all the way. It is where we greet people. It is where brides and grooms exit the sanctuary after their wedding. It is where people line up to enter the sanctuary to pay respects to a loved one who has died. It is where people stream in and out on Christmas Eve.
If we were discussing putting in modern glass doors or changing out the leaded glass windows or knocking down walls, I would agree with the HRMC. Changing those things would “harm an important representation of Davis history.” But if I compare the relative value of protecting the “essential form and integrity” of a small cracked concrete stoop versus a hospitable and accessible entryway for all people, the ramp (as it has been carefully designed to protect the representation of Davis History) wins hands down.
Just: [b]all of the power[/b] is with the elected city council. Any decision the HRMC makes against an applicant is decided by the council, not by the HRMC. Most of the votes of the HRMC are simply advisory.
The council appoints members to the HRMC specifically to uphold our historical preservation ordinance ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/printsection.cfm?chapter=40§ion=23[/url]). That is precisely what we, as commissioners, have been assigned to do by the city council.
We are, for example, often asked to determine if a proposed project meets the design guidelines which have been adopted by the city council. If we find that they don’t meet the guidelines*, we will express that view in a vote. But the vote carries no weight. The Planning Commission will often hear such cases after we hear them, and the PC takes a formal vote on questions of the design guidelines. The DPC’s vote has power, unless the applicant appeals to the city council. And as with every decision made by every commission, the council’s job is to consider what the commissioners said, but ultimately to make up their minds and decide all matters.
In cases where an applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness, such as with the church, when we find the CoA violates the Historical Resources Ordinance, the city council makes the final decision. Our vote advises and informs them. But it does not constrain them.
We are also asked to determine if a property meets the Ordinance’s requirements as either a Landmark or Merit resource. But our vote is just advisory. The council always makes the final call.
*An example of a project which we determined harmed a historic resource and violated the city’s design guidelines — they are different for various neighborhoods in the older parts of town — was the Ogrydziak project on B Street. Our opinion was then considered by the Planning Comm., and it formally rejected the Ogrydziak project on design guideline grounds. The Ogrydziak’s then appealed to the city council, where the final decision was made.
That’s helpful, Rich.
It seems strange to me, though, process-wise, that in order to appeal what is simply an opinion (albeit an informed opinion), the appellant is required to pay a fee to the city. That does seem to put more power into the hands of the commission. I suppose the idea is to keep things like this off the Council’s agenda unless there is a disagreement. Should the appellant be penalized in that case, though? Just thinking out loud here.
Curious: You say in your first paragraph that “most [emphasis mine] of the votes of the HRMC are simply advisory.” Is there an instance or are there circumstances in which their votes have been or are binding?
[i]”Is there an instance or are there circumstances in which their votes have been or are binding?”[/i]
Binding? No, not if there is an appeal filed. Only the council’s decisions are ultimately binding. That is true with every city commission*.
For example, when a homeowner has a problem with a city-mandated street tree on his property and wants to remove it, she needs to apply for its removal with the Tree Commission. If they reject her request, the decision stands, unless she appeals to the city council. When the council hears her appeal, the council’s decision is binding.
*Some commissions have “award” programs, where they honor (usually with a certificate) various members of the community for in one way or another contributing to the public good–the council generally has no input on them. I know that the human relations commission has these sorts of awards. We have them, too, at the HRMC, for contributions to historic preservation. However, we don’t always give them out every year. In 2009, we awarded some individuals. This year we didn’t have any.
“will harm an important representation of Davis history. And if we don’t take care of our history, we will lose it”
I appreciate historical architecture and I am also an Access Specialist that advocates for full integration & inclusion of Individuals with Disabilities. Both of these concepts can exist in harmony meshed together as one. I see there is excellent debate in the comments and respect the commission members honesty but, I think the quoted comment above really drives the point home that HRMC would rather segregate & discriminate than touch, or appear to impose upon the “historic” appearance! Creating full Architectural Access for Individuals with Disabilities @ the same common route public Access point will send the message that segregation is not acceptable & Inclusion is embraced!
Please post the website for the city in a comment about this very important issue of All Inclusive Access vs Historic preservation. great example of All Inclusive Access vs Historic preservation is the original Boston State House.
found it, thank you.
[i]”HRMC would rather segregate & discriminate than touch”[/i]
This malicious statement by EA is not only highly prejudiced, mean-spirited and needlessly divisive, but it is entirely false and baseless. No wonder it is made by a lawyer hiding behind a pseudonym.
Very interesting discussion. We now get a better picture of where the HRMC was coming from, and DCC’s position in opposition. One thing that would assist in the discussion I suppose are pictures of what we are talking about so readers could better decide.
Commissions can wield a lot of power, in an indirect way. Even though commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council, and act in an advisory capacity, because commissioners know the subject matter pretty well, it gives their opinions more weight in the mind of the City Council I would assume. If more than one commission gets behind an issue, commissions have even more power. Commissions can also frame the issues, question underlying assumptions, and really get to the bottom of things very effectively, so serve in an investigative capacity (the Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility comes to mind – the Sr Citizens Commission totally discredited assumptions made by city staff to deter the project from being built over objections of Davis Waste Removal and Davis Police Dept.)
In my experience, most commissioners try and carry out their duties to the very best of their abilities. At times, though, a commission may have a more myopic view of things because they don’t take into account anything but their own mission statement. Some commission mission statements are more exacting than others. I would assume the HRMC has more specific charges than most commmissions, since the HRMC is following federal mandates. Nevertheless, it almost always is a subjective call – as noted in the split decision of the HRMC itself on this issue.
I’m curious, revmlt (pastor of DCC), did you make an appearance before the HRMC, and let them know the front entrance was the one primarily used? If you were not there, why not? It would have been helpful information for the HRMC to have had for its deliberations…
Rich, that is exactly what Historic Commissions do under the guise of protecting historical buildings. There are many locations within the state of Massachusetts & New England in general that have incorporated Access features while sustaining the historical integrity of the building or facility. Stop using the “historical” argument when denying Equal Access for Individuals with Disabilities! Does your historical commission think that Individuals with Disabilities don’t love the architectural history from the 1900 or the 30s 40s or 50s. It is very disrespectful and has excluded millions of American’s with Disabilities.
I would love to see photos of this church! History also clearly indicates how churches have excluded the Disabled but go to Massachusetts and the building code requires Equal Access when 521CMR is triggered.
[i]”I’m curious, revmlt (pastor of DCC), did you make an appearance before the HRMC, and let them know the front entrance was the one primarily used?”[/i]
Rev. Mary Lynn Tobin did appear, did testify and made her views known. She was joined by a number of her congregants, including at least one who is wheel-chair bound. The DCC group is led by Jay Gerber, who is a lay member of the church.
There were actually a number of meetings, including one in which we walked over to the church (from the Hattie Weber Museum, where our meetings are held) and examined the access points to and from the narthex.
As to if Rev. Tobin testified about the front door on 4th Street being “the one primarily used,” I don’t recall. Able-bodied members of the church, however, definitely testified that they “use the C Street entrance” and none of them saw that as demeaning or degrading.
I also recall that Rev. Tobin stressed, just as she said in her comments above, that the project was one of “hospitality.” That is, she wanted to make all people feel welcome and she believes that having a front entrance which is not accessible to some people violates that standard for her congregants and for others in the community who visit the church for concerts and other events. I fully respect Rev. Tobin’s point-of-view.
Rev. Tobin also mentioned to us that because the current patio is so small, if she stands on it to meet with her congregants as they leave church, they suffer from a problem of congestion at the front door. She suggested that if she were further back, the congestion problem at the door might be solved.
One other side note: I offered a compromise solution to this issue, which would provide full access to all congregants at the front door and would not touch the historical fabric of the church. But with the exception of one person from the city staff who told me it was a smart thought, everyone else rejected it.
My compromise idea was to build a patio structure out of trex decking which abuts the current patio but is not drilled into it or otherwise permanently attached to it.
[img]http://www.mattsalernocompany.com/images/decks/trexdeck.jpg[/img]
It could cover the same area that the proposed patio will cover; and it could be made accessible by a wheel-chair ramp in the same spot as proposed. It could use the same iron-forged railing styles as the church proposes for its permanent, concrete patio and ramp.
And if at any time in the future it was not sufficient for the needs of the church, the deck and ramp could be moved or removed without ever touching the historic church.
The idea struck me when seeing a number of homes in old parts of Davis which were built without handicap access, but now have trex ramps built up to their front doors. They are not permanent structures. When they are no longer needed, they can be moved or removed. But the residents of those homes, probably due to some recent condition of ill-health, need them for access now.
By the way, I am not advertising for Trex brand. That’s just the term I know. It is a very good product, because unlike redwood or cedar decking, it takes no maintenance and it will not deteriorate.
[img]http://taylorhomerehab.com/web_images/composite.jpg[/img]
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/TFX9iP2fNUI/AAAAAAAAAb4/q4KKfBcpQd0/s1600/trex.bmp[/img]
I do not know where those pictures were taken but there isn’t anything historic about the public space in them.
As a member of Davis Community Church who is active in the life of the Church and the community, I would testify that the majority of congregants enter by the 4th St. entrance, and certainly, that the [u]overwhemimg[/u] majority exit that way. The C St. entrance/exit is the back of the bus, and it’s no use pretending otherwise. Historical preservation is a fine thing. Welcoming access to all the community is a finer thing. Sometimes I feel like engaging in religious life in Davis, California is one long slog through a battlefield littered with the bodies of the insufficiently non-sectarian. Sheesh!