Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Nimby Opposition to Coho [was 2 articles: Effect on & Twointerest

[cpie55 [at] earthlink.net (cpie55]

Hi, I was at that meeting to support the project, but I am not a resident
nor future resident so I did not comment at the time. I am forming a letter
to the editor which I will pass on when it is done. This area of Orangevale
is 1/4 acre lots, there are no horses within view, perhaps a whiff on a
breezy day. It has a very suburban feel. The property in question is 1/2 a
block from a major thouroughfare, directly behind a large concrete fitness
center. It is within an area identified by the county as a transportation
corridor. The county is looking for demonstration sites to upzone as much
as 15 homes per acre in order to boost the transportation system. (Mass
transit requires mass...) This coho is asking for an upzone from RD-4 to
RD-10.

I heard 3 major concerns expressed by the neighbors:  (I will elaborate on
these in my letter to ed.)
Traffic (Request: can anyone send me info on studies done about coho and
traffic? I believe there was one done at Nyland...Thanks.)
Density 
Visual Impact

They already have a tremendous traffic problem. The second two are moot:
The density is a cry about loss of open space which they have already lost
- there are no existing farms or open space in the vicinity. They know the
land will be developed and they will have visual impact. The current trend
is to build stucco boxes as big as can be with a little strip of set-back
for a yard.

The article is reprinted below. 


Welcome mat doesn't roll out for cohousing
By Stan Oklobdzija - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PST Monday, January 8, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1
Print | E-Mail | Comments (9)
 
An artist's rendering of the proposed Sycamore Village, which would include
35 units on a 3.5-acre lot in Orangevale. The project features a
nontraditional living style - private homes with a large common area.
McCamant & Durrett Architects
See additional images
 
Sue Pimentel of Orangevale doesn't care if the folks at Sycamore Village
feel like trading privacy for proximity.
She doesn't mind the idea of swapping a private lawn for a communal open
space, or if all 70 residents feel like eating their dinners together in a
giant common house.
In fact, Pimentel thinks it's a great idea. It's just not one she wants in
her backyard.
 
Cohousing, a development concept more common to urban areas, is trying to
find a place for itself in a community that prides itself on its rural
charm, its open spaces and, above all, its horses.
While conviviality is the foundation on which cohousing is built, advocates
for the Sycamore Village, a 35-unit development, are finding their
prospective neighbors less welcoming than they'd hoped.
Residents around the 3.5-acre lot just south of the intersection of
Greenback Lane and Illinois Avenue are fuming about what this dense
development might do to their home prices and the rural feel they've come
to expect in Orangevale.
They've gathered about 70 signatures on a petition in opposition to the
project.
At a Jan. 2 meeting of the Orangevale Community Planning Advisory Council,
a six-person council that reviews proposed developments and makes
nonbinding recommendations to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors,
opponents turned out in numbers. The board voted 4-2 to recommend that
supervisors deny the project a crucial rezone.
Besides, said Pimentel, one of the petition's organizers who's lived on
nearby Thelen Court for the last 23 years, "we already have cohousing (in
Orangevale); they're called courts."
Cohousing is a concept that originated in Denmark during the 1970s, said
Rick Mockler, vice president of CoHousing Partners LLC and project manager
for the Sycamore Village development.
In a cohousing community, residents trade smaller spaces in their private
residences for a large common area that features everything from a dining
hall to children's rooms and a library, he said.
Not just an advocate for cohousing during the workday, Mockler and his
family live in Muir Commons in Davis, America's first newly constructed
cohousing development, which opened in 1991.
"What we're trying to do is re-create a traditional neighborhood that
existed 50 years ago before TV sets and computer games," he said. "There
was a time when people knew their neighbors and celebrated those
relationships."
Mockler said there are currently 22 cohousing communities in California,
including one in Sacramento and one in Nevada City.
Greg Kelly, who rents in Fair Oaks with his wife, Tiffany, and 4-year-old
daughter, Isabelle, saw Sycamore Village as the perfect mix of
homeownership without the "disconnected way of life" typical of suburban
tracts.
The Kellys are so committed to the project, they've invested $25,000 of
their own money in helping it through design and development. The other
five families currently signed onto the project have contributed a total of
$200,000, said Marty Maskall, the project's organizer.
Pimentel said it's not the philosophy of cohousing that upsets her and her
neighbors.
"I think it's an excellent idea," she said. "It's environmentally good and
hopefully we'll see more of it here and there ... (but) we feel this is an
inappropriate place to put it."
Like Pimentel, Katherine Leonard, vice chairwoman of the advisory council,
said the project didn't belong in Orangevale.
"There are just way too many changes and rezones ... . I have strong
heartburn about rezoning in Orangevale," she said.
Leonard, who has lived in Orangevale all her life, said the "small town
living" and the "openness of the land" have kept her in the same spot for
more than 50 years.
"You can still walk down the street and see horses and white-rail fences. I
can sometimes go out my patio door and smell horses."
Leonard said development is inevitable, but dense development such as
Sycamore Village belongs on major thoroughfares such as Greenback Lane and
Madison Avenue.
Bob Crawford, chairman of the advisory council, also voted against
recommending the rezone.
"People already look at those corridors as nonrural," he said. "You can
keep (Orangevale) rural on one side and urban on another."
The Sycamore Village project is awaiting review by county planning staff.
>From there, it'll go before the Board of Supervisors for a final decision.
Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan, who represents Orangevale, said she hadn't
seen details of the project but said she supports keeping sections of
Orangevale rural.
"I think parts of the county can continue to be rural into the foreseeable
future," she said. "It's a big county and there's room for all types (of
development)."
That's not enough for Kelly, who said Tuesday's vote was disappointing.
"If you had some Joe Blow developer (developing the site), he'd chop down
every tree and put up massive two-story McMansions," he said. "If that's
what the neighbors want, good luck to them."
About the writer:
·       The Bee's Stan Oklobdzija can be reached at (916) 608-7453 or
stano [at] sacbee.com.