[OldNorth] R-2CD zoning district

[Valerie Vann]

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