FW: [OldNorth] Meeting on Zoning Held on June 2nd

Andrew P. Wallace ap_wallace at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 3 10:28:12 PDT 2003 

Forwarded mail:  Detail from Steve regarding a "Granny Flat". 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy Marshall [mailto:stracy at davis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 10:32 AM
To: Andrew P. Wallace
Cc: John Lofland
Subject: Re: [OldNorth] Meeting on Zoning Held on June 2nd


Andy and John.  This is Steve, and I have no idea if Cyndi has set this 
up so everyone gets it.  The new state law does not increase the 
dwelling unit right, but addresses the process to build an accessory 
unit (granny flat).  Granny flats have been allowed on all residential 
lots for decades, and for once the legislature made a powerful and 
righteous statement about why they are good when that legislation was 
adopted.  No city or county can pass restrictions that are tantamount 
to a prohibition of granny flats.  (Lafayette did however, restrict 
granny flats to only lots larger than one acre, to prevent 
"overcrowding.")

What the new law does is require a ministerial process for granny 
flats, which will remove the discretionary process step that defeated 
so many benign proposals because the neighbors flipped out.  My 
understanding was that in Old North this means that granny flats 
meeting the design guidelines (and soon the zoning) re height, size, 
etc. will soon be allowed by right.  At Harriet Steiner's suggestion, 
the city is also removing the restriction that at least one of the 
units must be occupied by the owner of the property.  I guess someone 
finally read the 14th amendment to the constitution.  You know, that 
pesky thing Abe Lincoln snuck in there about equal treatment.

Steve.
On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 09:05  AM, Andrew P. Wallace wrote:

> John, yes, you are correct.
>
> However, R-2 is different than a separate residence.
>
> All residences in California can essentially have a livable accessory
> structure (used to be called a "granny unit").  However, with R-2, you 
> can
> have a duplex.  For instance, in Old North you can legally divide any 
> house
> and have 2 or 3 bedrooms on each side eventhough it is only 1 
> structure and
> two addresses.
>
>> From the meeting, if we went to R-1, duplexes would be illegal, but 
>> liveable
> accessary structures would not.
>
> This item WAS NOT proposed by the city, but simply discussed by 
> residents.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: oldnorth-admin at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
>> [mailto:oldnorth-admin at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us]On Behalf Of John
>> Lofland
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:48 AM
>> To: members at oldnorthdavis.com
>> Subject: Re: [OldNorth] Meeting on Zoning Held on June 2nd
>>
>>
>> Many thanks to Andy for the report on the meeting on zoning.
>>
>> A question of clarification. I have heard that fairly recent state
>> law declares that at least two residences can be built on any
>> residential lot. Therefore, all such lots in Davis (and every
>> California place) are de facto R-2. Is that correct? If so, an effort
>> to go R-1 could apparently not be successful. State law prohibits it.
>>
>> Anyone have solid info on this?
>>
>> John Lofland
>>
>>
>>
>>> All,
>>> I did attend the meeting last night for the City zoning.  It was
>>> interesting.  There was a large showing from Old East.  There
>> were a number
>>> of things discussed;  the meeting lasted two hours.  The speakers 
>>> were
>>> Esther Polito and Danielle Foster.  The meeting went well, and
>> they are very
>>> open to new ideas.
>>>
>>> They are providing input to the Planning Commission for the
>> upcoming meeting
>>> on June 17.
>>>
>>> If you would like to have an issue considered, please contact
>> Esther AS SOON
>>> AS POSSIBLE or they will not have time to incorporate your ideas
>> before the
>>> meeting.  Her contact info is:
>>>
>>> Esther Polito
>>> 757-5610
>>> epolito at ci.davis.ca.us
>>>
>>> A few issues that caught my eye:
>>> --They are still evaluating set backs for a two story principal 
>>> building.
>>> Possible ptions:
>>> -If existing at 5 feet, allow it to continue straight up
>>> -If existing at 5 feet, top section must have 10 foot setback
>>> -All two story structures must have 10 foot setback
>>>
>>> --Design Review
>>> -Everything in our area must go through Design Review regardless
>> if designs
>>> follow the Guidlines or not.
>>>
>>> --Off-street Parking
>>> -If primary residence is 4 bedroom or less and if the accessory
>> structure is
>>> less than 480 square feet and either a 1 bedroom or studio, then 
>>> only 2
>>> off-street parking places are required.
>>>
>>> --Some discussion on what is considered a bedroom.
>>> -A resident from J-Street complained that next to them was a
>> duplex with 6
>>> or 7 functional bedrooms on each side and over 20 people living 
>>> there.
>>> Dining rooms, offices, and dens were converted to bedrooms.
>>> -A resident from Old North stated that an individual trying to
>> build a small
>>> office off the master bedroom was required to place an extra
>> parking spot on
>>> the lot.
>>>
>>> --A number of residents at the meeting supported converting Old 
>>> North and
>>> Old East to R1
>>>
>>> --Why a Conservation District?
>>> -There was some discussion on why we are called a Conservation
>> District when
>>> Permitted uses include:  duplexes, family/group day care, 
>>> etc....this was
>>> linked to the desire to go to R1
>>> -It's not known what percentage of people want to go to R1 or if
>> this was a
>>> vocal minority.
>>>
>>>
>>> There were a number of other things discussed that I missed.  The 
>>> most
>>> important thing, contact Esther with what is concerning you.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Andy Wallace
>>> Secretary, Old North Davis Nieghborhood Association
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>>  From: oldnorth-admin at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
>>>>  [mailto:oldnorth-admin at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us]On Behalf Of 
>>>> angela
>>>>  Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:50 AM
>>>>  To: Andrew P. Wallace; members at oldnorthdavis.com
>>>>  Subject: Re: [OldNorth] SPAM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Spam is a problem... but... the delete key is likely
>>>>  easier for us than the various things you can do... so
>>>>  lets wait and see.
>>>>
>>>>  Did anyone go to either the Co-op or the city meeting
>>>>  on zoning last night?  If so what happened?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Angela
>>>>  --- "Andrew P. Wallace" <ap_wallace at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>> There has been an increasing number of SPAM emails
>>>>> to the the Old North
>>>>> Davis mailing list.  There are various things I can
>>>>> do to cut down on these.
>>>>> However, I'm hoping not to as the current settings
>>>>> make list management
>>>>> easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the event that SPAM becomes excessive over the
>>>>> coming weeks/months, I
>>>>> will change various properties of the email list to
>>>>> reduce the potential for
>>>>> SPAM.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Andy Wallace
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> oldnorth mailing list
>>>>> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
>>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  oldnorth mailing list
>>>>  oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
>>>>  http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> oldnorth mailing list
>>> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> oldnorth mailing list
>> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth
>
> _______________________________________________
> oldnorth mailing list
> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth
>

More information about the oldnorth mailing list