Community in Action
I’m a fan of community action, input and advocacy. Participatory government is a good thing.
But IMHO, Tuesday’s City Council meeting was an example of it gone wrong and might be indicative of the need for a correction in Alameda. (maybe).
I’m not talking about OSH, though there are interesting parallels in the fact that most of the speakers were there to address issues that were not actually before the council, but that’s another discussion (one about retail policies and do we have the right ones). I’m talking about 3327 Fernside Boulevard and an appeal of this house renovation by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
This poor resident has spent eighteen months trying to renovate her house, including raising it 15” in order to build an in-law unit for her elderly parents to live in. And guess what, her neighbors support her. During this time, Staff, presumably working with AAPS has tried to make her go to the Historic Advisory Board on the grounds that the rebuilding of her foundation should be include in the calculation of whether she is changing 30% of a historic structure. This move was stopped at the last moment before the meeting.
Read that again, the argument (staff’s at least, but one has to imagine that they had some help) is that the foundation, which is buried in the ground and unseen, should be considered a part of the historical aspect of a structure and therefore trigger a HAB review. This would lead to almost every house renovation going to the HAB if it included foundation work!
THEN, staff comes to the meeting with a proposed “compromise” that they have worked out. But they haven’t discussed it with the homeowner. So the big question is “compromise with whom?” The planning board had already approved the project, the homeowner wasn’t involved in the discussion. Who was staff compromising with (or for)?
But that’s tangential to the point. Like I said, I’m a big fan of advocacy. But after getting the approval of the Planning Board, the AAPS filed an appeal of the decision. Again, no problem there. What was ridiculous, and it was cited by members on the dais, as well as speakers at the end of the meeting, was that AAPS turned out its membership to support the appeal which was not a policy discussion, or a major design flaw, it was 15 inches. And none of the speakers live in the neighborhood.
There was one speaker from the neighborhood and she was in favor of the project, plus a signed petition in support of the project from 24 other residents. And there were eight, non-neighbors speaking against it. (One woman said she drove past the house daily and didn’t want to have to look at the new design).
One last time, I’ve no problem with AAPS appealing; they have good, smart people who care about our community. But if you’re appealing a single project in a specific neighborhood, assign one, maybe two people to present your points, not eight. If you’re a group, speak as one.
If the issue was about creating city policy, turn your membership loose, if it’s about nuances of interpretation, have your spokesperson do it.
Not only was this rather unfair to the homeowner (who should give seminars on how to argue your case in front of a public body. It was one of the best presentations I’ve seen. Assertive but respectful and full of real information), and not only did it drag the meeting on for an hour and a half before the OSH appeal. It turned off the very people they were trying to convince, the council.
Tuesday’s meeting had two big lessons: first, come prepared to respectfully assert your case (see applicants presentation) and second, remember your place in the civic discussion (appeal if you must, but don’t turn every tiny renovation into a large redevelopment fight).
From the city-wide view: so many Alameda issues end up being turned into long, drawn out battles. This my-way-or-the-highway style of politics (which I don’t mean that AAPS was nasty, rude or deceptive, but instead turned a molehill into a serious mountain that had a profound effect on one family for eighteen months) is not creating goodwill in the community or even leading to better decision making. Stepping back and accepting that sometimes the votes don’t go your way can end up paying dividends down the road. Just some thoughts before the weekend.
Also, SunCal is submitting their Development Concept today, based on past comments, one would assume it will look very similar to what was presented at last Wednesday’s ARRA meeting.
Leave a Reply