From ap_wallace at yahoo.com Fri Dec 12 07:01:56 2003 From: ap_wallace at yahoo.com (Andrew P. Wallace) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:01:56 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] FW: misc info Message-ID: <200312121502.hBCF23J05829@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us> _____ From: sheryl lynn gerety [mailto:winterety at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:54 PM To: angela; winterety at sbcglobal.net Cc: Dennis Dingemans; Andrew P. Wallace; Dan Quickert; Steve & Tracy Marshall; John Lofland; Ian; Andrew P. Wallace Subject: Re: misc info 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: From dequickert at omsoft.com Fri Dec 12 08:22:26 2003 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:22:26 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: City Council Next Tuesday Message-ID: <01C3C089.13B509B0.dequickert@omsoft.com> Bruce wrote: > 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.) I will be there if I am able at the time, and will speak. Ted Puntillo's comments are very misguided. To burden a section of town that has some of the smallest lots in the City with further development and 'densification' is just sick. If the Council wants to prevent more farmland from being inundated with housing, it should mandate smaller lot sizes in new developments. If it wants more affordable housing, it should mandate smaller lot sizes combined with with a reasonable Floor Area Ratio. The Staff Report says that most of Old North lots are below the standard for size for R-2 zoning. Anyone know where Ted Puntillo lives? Maybe we can find out what the lot sizes are there - perhaps it's a good candidate for 'up-zoning'! Seriously, if anyone can provide me with addresses (or at least neighbor hoods) for all the City Council members, I can use that for illustration in my presentation (if I should make one ;-). I have parcel map data for most of the City on my computer. Dan From dequickert at omsoft.com Fri Dec 12 08:45:58 2003 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:45:58 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: City Council Next Tuesday Message-ID: <01C3C08C.5DA8BDC0.dequickert@omsoft.com> I said: > I have parcel map data for most > of the City on my computer. Unfortunately, it is rather inaccurate insofar as precise parcel sizes. But it can be used for generalities, I believe. I'll try to work up a map with relative lot sizes in different areas of the City. Dan From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Fri Dec 12 09:22:03 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:22:03 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: City Council Next Tuesday In-Reply-To: <01C3C089.13B509B0.dequickert@omsoft.com> References: <01C3C089.13B509B0.dequickert@omsoft.com> Message-ID: Ted Puntillo, 4203 Montgomery Avenue (which is at the south edge of the city) Ruth Asmundson, 545 Miller Drive.(also owns downtown property). Susie Boyd, 527 E Street (also owns house on Redwood Lane, 1627 or close to it). Mike Harrington, 424 D Street (also owns 430 D Street) Sue Greenwald, 233 Rice Lane (also has rental at 606 C Street). Notice that four of these people own property in or very close to the affected areas. Could there be conflicts of interests here? John From valerie at vanngroup.com Fri Dec 12 10:31:24 2003 From: valerie at vanngroup.com (Valerie Vann) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:31:24 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] R-2CD zoning district Message-ID: <3FDA097C.ED8A84D0@vanngroup.com> This slid off my radar the last couple of months due to some other priorities, but now that it is "hot" again, perhaps someone who's been following it could enlighten me: Some of us are "in" Old North, but (as you know from the COOP affair) are also targeted in some way for commercial expansion of the core area, and have been zoned mixed-use and even "commercial". This is the east side of the two blocks on G Street between 5th and 7th. The 600 block has already has quite a bit of densification. This year there was approved an herbal medicine office coversion of a single family dwelling on the North side of 7th between F and G. Technically this is out of Old North, but in reality part of "the neighborhood" in look and effect. It may have "cracked" that block. There have also been two events in the last couple of months in the 600 block of 6 Street that are a sharp change: The new psuedo Victorian house at the corner of 6th and 6 Sts. has been equipped with an outside stairway and 2nd story entrance, turning it apparently from a single family residence to an actual or possible 2-family use. Also, the single family residence next door to it has just been converted to an office (with cars sometimes parked tail end in the street and/or partly across the sidewalk.) Prior to this year, the trend in this block had been toward maintaining single family residential, with no new multifamily or business uses developed. Now we've got a sharp change. So my question is: where do these two half blocks fit into the new zoning? Does it apply to us, or is the City determined to force us into being a panhandle of commercial development? If the rest of Old North is going to be under pressure to densify (which I agree is sick given the lot sizes, need to conserve traditional open space). Given the East-West orientation of the lots, every taller building so far has put its neighboors in the shade all winter, resulted in loss of privacy, and increased noise problems. Increasing traffic on alleys and loss of backyard landscaping to meet arbitrary parking requirements is a concern. F Street will be particularly under pressure to allow house to office conversions, following along the course of every traditional neighborhood in California towns and small cities. The City needs to decide whether they want to really encourage the preservation of this neighborhood as a real neighborhood with owner occupied residences, or just a streetside facade of traditional false fronts "hiding" concreted over backyards, 2nd units cleverly hidden behind the front profile, as in the proposal for the house on F St. near 6th, and more absentee landlord rentals, with neither occupants nor owners having any real stake in the character of the neighborhood. Valerie Vann From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Fri Dec 12 17:42:50 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:42:50 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. Message-ID: The City Council agenda for Tuesday has just arrived. For those who are not subscribers to that email service, I attach what I got. Note that this meeting starts at 5:30 PM. Our item of interest is on the consent calender. To get it heard, someone must request that it be pulled. The person most effective in doing this would our President. One can call the City Clerk, Betti Rakki. Or, one can ask a member of the Council to pull it. Some staff have the influence to get items pulled. There is boiler plate language on this topic on the agenda, as I recall. John -------------- next part -------------- City of Davis Automated Email List Subscriptions __________________________________________________ - SEE ATTACHMENT - City Council Agenda for December 16, 2003. Please note: Meeting begins with a closed session at 5:30 p.m. __________________________________________________ City of Davis Automated Email List Subscriptions http://www.ci.davis.ca.us/email Your user name: jflofland To UNSUBSCRIBE from all lists click here: http://www.ci.davis.ca.us/email/unsubscribe/?u=6E1E46108384E51CB5E8A23E3C52EE05 __________________________________________________ City of Davis http://www.city.davis.ca.us Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:A16Dec03.pdf (PDF /CARO) (0007E78A)