[OldNorth] City Council Next Tuesday

[John Lofland]

Dear Old North Residents,

When Bruce's email arrived, I had just finished reading the 115 page 
Davis Staff report on R-2CD and I was very depressed by it.

But, then I read Bruce's analysis and it has boosted my spirit. We 
are late in the process, but with some effort i think we can turn 
this matter around.

The problem I have had in responding is that the topic is very 
technical and arcane. I have been intimidated by the professional 
planners, as are, I think, most people. Who are we to tell them about 
such things, we presume. But we presume wrong.

Thanks to Peter and then to Bruce, who have not been as fearful as 
me, the true character of what is going on is coming to light. We owe 
Peter and Bruce a great deal for their perception, energy, and 
courage.

I suggest our next public goal is to get at least five credible 
speakers before the  Council next Tuesday. (Happily, I think we are 
now up to four volunteers.)

Before then, we need a meeting to organize. (Hint, hint, President Willson!)

Thanks., Bruce,

John





At 8:53 PM -0800 12/11/03, sheryl lynn gerety wrote:
>Fellow Board Members:
>
>	I set up the streaming video and watched the R-2 discussion. 
>A quick summary (on John's invitation; jump to the asterisk if you 
>want to get straight to the controversy):
>	Esther P introduced for first reading the R-2 Cons Dist 
>zoning proposal for Old North and Old East.  Here is what I took to 
>be the high points:
>	(i)  The R-2CD zone would preserve the R-2 guidelines so far 
>as allowing either single family, duplex, or 2 family unit 
>development.
>	(ii)  Procedure for approval of 'accessory units' would 
>change.  If the units fully met the "very specific" size/setback 
>requirements currently in place, they would be subject only to 
>administrative approval, not a full conditional use permit.  In 
>effect, neighbors would be notified, but unless the unit exceeded 
>current guidelines or provoked neighborhood criticism, it would be 
>approved at the administrative level.
>	(iii)  A new feature is greater flexibility in setbacks, as 
>part of an attempt to make existing non-legal but habitable 
>structures legal.   For instance, because our lots are so small, 
>virtually none of them meet  the current minimum lot size for the 
>city.  Streetside setbacks have been reduced (I believe she said) 
>from 15 to 10 feet for Old North.
>	(iv)  Parking requirements are to become more flexible and 
>more cognizant of the current situation in Old North (our small lots 
>and diverse degrees of conformity with existing guidelines).   The 
>calculated numbered of required spaces, I believe, is reduced by one 
>(a 3 bdrm house and accessory structure would be required to have 
>two off-street spaces, the third assumed to be on-street).  And, 
>there is a bit of slippage allowed in the requirement, again in 
>recognition of our small lots and precious open space, in that one 
>of these might be used for something like a patio, provided it was 
>'reserved' for future parking if needed.  NOTE that in the context 
>of parking,  EP spoke of it being appropriate that our neighborhood 
>'densify at a small scale (accessory) rather than via duplexes or 
>secondary structures.'
>	(v)  EP said the neighborhood wanted zoning consistent with 
>the design guidelines, but she was 'balanced' or non-committal when 
>pressed by council members on wishes in the neighborhood to move to 
>R-1.  She said she had heard strong opinions in favor, but could not 
>evaluate if they represented broader sentiment.  She said that 
>individuals had taken positions but not the wider neighborhood or 
>neighborhood organization.  She did say that passing the R-2CD 
>zoning now would not preclude revisiting R-1, and that the current 
>draft would require little modification to change it to R-1.
>
>	Peter G then spoke in the public comment period, the only 
>person to do so, and gave a spontaneous and eloquent plea for R-1, 
>as the only way to protect the values of the design guidelines and, 
>in fact, the character, scale and atmosphere of Old North.
>
>	(vi) Michael Harrington expressed skepticism that down-zoning 
>was legal (his reasoning apparently that it might reduce property 
>values); the city attorney was clear that the council can change 
>zoning in whatever way it feels justified for the usual reasons of 
>public safety, appropriate use, etc.
>	(vii)  *Ted Potillo (spelling?) spoke spontaneously and with 
>conviction that R-2 was appropriate because densification "big time" 
>was the Davis way and we were prime territory for it because we were 
>adjacent to downtown.  His cited as rationales protection of 
>agricultural land, promotion of pedestrian culture, etc.
>	Harrington worried a bit about not having enough neighborhood 
>input, but he noted that this was a first reading only, and then 
>went along with the two other members present and not recused and 
>voted to pass the first reading.  Harrington publicly invited our 
>input prior to a second reading.
>
>	I think we do need to meet quickly and talk about this, 
>especially if the second reading of the zoning propoal is to be the 
>16th of this month, as proposed.   I wasn't alarmed before, but have 
>become so by a convergence of events:  the F-street proposal to 
>build to second house to a 55% Floor-Area-Ratio (combined with Ted 
>P's emphatic statement, which would appear to endorse this kind of 
>thing on a wide scale); the apparent decision to subsume our parking 
>petition into a larger review of downtown parking needs; and, our 
>inattention, until now, to the zoning issue.   We've been busy and 
>focused on other things, but this has become important.  Harrington 
>and city staff explicitly opened the door to our input in statements 
>at this meeting, and if we don't respond and give it, we will have 
>given away our chance to have an influence.
>
>			Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20031211/0911d27a/attachment.html>