From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Sun Dec 14 12:03:53 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:03:53 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Andy, l. Yes, we have a problem with the Council Agenda for December 16. For one thing,it is not yet posted at the ordinary location of the City agenda page. 2. Further, the agenda I got by email did not open and operate in the usual way. Instead of being detachable from the email in pdf, it can only be read within the email and will not print! 3. But, I was able to select the text and copy and past it into a word document. Some of the formatting is gone, but the content is there. I have attached it here. Please let me know if there are further problems with it. 4. On that agenda, our item is 4. I. That is, it is deep in the consent calender part of the agenda. The description contains the phrases Old North Davis and Old East Davis. 5.The term "pull" is political junkie slang for "removing" an item from the consent calender. 6. Under item 3 on the agenda, the process of removing items is explained and I think I described it more fully in a previous email. 7. The measure had its public hearing last week. It is now up for what is called "the second reading." Nothing further will said about it and it will be approved unless someone asks to speak on it by pulling/removing it. Then the public can speak on it. That is what at least five of us plan to do on Tuesday. (I hope there will be many more by then.) 8. Unhappily, we are about out of time for consensus-building. Hardly any of us (including me) realized what the measure was actually about. We only woke up in viewing the public hearing. 9. Take heart, though. It is because there are situations of this sort that there is a second reading! The framers of the legislative process recognized that the nature and consequences of many measures do not become clear before they are fully explored near the very end. That is exactly what is happening here. In this sense, the democratic process is working quite well and we have been saved from our previous inability to perceive the actual features of the measure Best, John ___________________________________ >John, > >At your convenience, can you please clarify what you mean by "pulled". Do >you mean "pulled" off? Or somehow put on? > >Also, the agenda didn't come through as an attachment. I went to the >website, but could not find an Agenda relevant to Old North for the meeting >on the 16th. This was all that I found: > >Appointment to Commissions: Finance & Budget Commission, Personnel Board, >Senior Citizens Commission > > Cable Franchise Renewal Update (Parks & Community Services Dept Jerilyn >Cochran) > Summary of primary negotiating points and permission to extend the >franchise for another 60 days. > > CDBG/HOME Request for Proposal Approval (P&CS Jerilyn Cochran) > Approving the critical needs and public outreach process for the 2004-2005 >CDBG and HOME programs. > > Closed Session: Conference with Labor Negotiator - All Employee >Associations > Closed Session Begins at 5:30 p.m. > > Glacier Place (Planning & Building Dept - Bill Emlen) > Multi uses subdivision - Senior Citizens Housing > > Lexington Apartments Market (Planning & Building Dept) > > Right of Way Vacations (Rhys Rowland, P&B) > >Lastly, from what I saw, the City still requires a public hearing. That >would provide the neighborhood association time to organize and attempt to >arrive at some neighborhood consensus. > >I'd appreciate your clarification. > >Thanks, >Andy > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: oldnorth-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >[mailto:oldnorth-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us]On Behalf Of John >Lofland >Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:43 PM >To: members at oldnorthdavis.com >Subject: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. > > >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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: council,_12-16.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49664 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Sun Dec 14 13:19:45 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:19:45 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] Density Op-ed Message-ID: Old Northers, Below I paste a copy of a draft of an op-ed will be sending to the Davis Enterprise. Before I do, I would welcome suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks. John _________________ Density and Densification in Davis: Some Facts and Questions John Lofland People interested in Davis "densification" owe City Councilmember Ted Puntillo a big thanks for clarifying this subject at the Council's December 9th meeting. Commenting on a proposed R-2 Conservation District for the Old East and North areas, he emphatically declared about this measure: "THIS IS DENSIFICATION -- BIG TIME!" On this and other measures he additionally observed that "everything is getting as many people as we can on a piece of property." His assertions are important because (among other reasons) a city planner had several times previously in this hearing claimed that this ordinance was NOT a densification measure. Therefore, Ted and the Planning Department are in conflict. Who is right? Will the proposed R-2 Conservation District ordinance produce densification or not? And further, should it? This dispute raises the larger questions of: "What do we mean by densification?" and "Where in Davis, if anywhere, should it happen?" Let me begin possible answers to these questions under the rubrics of "facts" and "questions." FACTS. How many people live in a square mile in various locations? 1. Davis' density is about 5,500 people per square mile. 2. Is 5,500 a big number or a little number? The answer is that it is a fairly big number. Consider these populations per square mile counts of nearby cities and communities: Woodland: 4,400 Sacramento: 3,800 Dixon: 2,700 Winters: 2,000 Then consider these square mile populations of some major American cities: Chicago: 3,200 New York City: 7,500 Los Angeles: 7,500 San Francisco: 15, 800 In a much wider and comparative perspective, contemplate: Planet Earth: 118 United States of America: 77 United Kingdom: 635 Germany: 597 And then think about these places with very high populations per square mile: Hong Kong: 16,700 Singapore: 17,300 Monaco: 45,000 QUESTIONS. 1. I think we Davis residents might start to talk about our target level of population per square mile. Do we want to go from 5,500 to, say, 10,000? Should Monaco, at 45,000, be our model? Or, do we want to go lower? Without a public understanding of where we are and where we want to go, we are merely moving bodies around in the dark. 2. In what parts of Davis (if any) should we encourage or discourage densification? 3. For example, the Old North already has a population per square mile of 7,000. Do we want to push above this already elevated number? As can be seen in the densities above, the Old North is already in the range of New York City and Los Angeles. Do we want it to be in the range of Singapore and Hong Kong? 4. Alternatively, should we try to raise the density of those areas that are significantly below the city-wide average of 5,500? For example, College Park has a density in the range of a mere 2,000. Should we develop policies that bring it up to the 5,500 city-wide level? Or, because it is so close to UC Davis, perhaps we should set a goal of 15,000 per square mile (or higher) for College Park. In addition, many of the blocks in the downtown have a density of zero. Should new ordinances coerce them to raise from zero to at least 5,500 people per square mile? To 15,000 per square mile? 5. Should areas now way above the 5,500 level be left alone until city-wide parity is achieved? (Interestingly, Davis already has a fair number of very, very high density areas that some people refer to as student apartment ghettoes.) I hope that the idea of a population per square mile measure will help move us beyond mere slogans and toward real policy. __________ John Lofland is the author or co-author of books and articles on Davis history and current affairs. He is a Professor of Sociology Emeritus at UC Davis and can be contacted at jflofland at ucdavis.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dequickert at omsoft.com Sun Dec 14 13:46:47 2003 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 13:46:47 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. Message-ID: <01C3C248.B960AB60.dequickert@omsoft.com> I just looked at the Council meeting video. I'm not so sure that this is the time to fight this battle. I will try to find some time either this evening or tomorrow morning, to look at it further. Dan On Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:17 PM, angela wrote: > HI guys...I've had time to think this over and I'm not comfortable speaking for the neighborhood... this was one thing we spent much time discussion (speaking for everyone)... we didn't want this group to speak without consent and we have not sought it... I am going to send an email to the council speaking on my behalf... hopefully others will do so... I think some are interested but just don't like to make waves... so I'll paddle enough for them. > > > aw From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Sun Dec 14 14:04:46 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:04:46 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. In-Reply-To: <01C3C248.B960AB60.dequickert@omsoft.com> References: <01C3C248.B960AB60.dequickert@omsoft.com> Message-ID: Dan, We only need to change Mike Harrington's vote to stop the measure. We have very good grounds to say that the implications were not understood until Puntillo made the densification claim, which is denied by the Planning Department. At the very least, the process should be stopped until we get a clear reading on who is right: Puntillo or the Planning Department? And there is the broader perspective put forth in my daft op-ed sent to you earlier today: What density do we want in the Old North? No one has as yet really thought about an answer to that question. And, we should answer it before embarking on zoning changes, one can say. We might decide that 7,000 people per square mile is already close to the proper density, being right up there with some major cities. John >I just looked at the Council meeting video. >I'm not so sure that this is the time to fight this battle. > >I will try to find some time either this evening or tomorrow morning, to >look at it further. > >Dan > >On Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:17 PM, angela wrote: >> HI guys...I've had time to think this over and I'm not comfortable >speaking for the neighborhood... this was one thing we spent much time >discussion (speaking for everyone)... we didn't want this group to speak >without consent and we have not sought it... I am going to send an email to >the council speaking on my behalf... hopefully others will do so... I think >some are interested but just don't like to make waves... so I'll paddle >enough for them. >> >> >> aw > >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth From valerie at vanngroup.com Sun Dec 14 17:24:40 2003 From: valerie at vanngroup.com (Valerie Vann) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:24:40 -0800 Subject: [OldNorthBoard] RE: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. References: <20031215003929.42633.qmail@web80505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3FDD0D58.F0E94B57@vanngroup.com> True, we did all get "noticed", but I wasn't aware anybody had concerns, despite the apparent inconsistency between ways the West side of G Street between 5th & 7th has been treated all along (leading to confusion about what the COOP is allowed to do for one thing). Now this "densification" business being applied to Old North (with or without the West side of G) is a whole different ball game that we've heard nothing about before now. How can densification be conceivably compatible with a genuine conservation and preservation of Old North as a residential neighborhood with historic character? Is the City just talking about preserving the appearance of the buildings from the streets, or actually conserving the NEIGHBORHOOD? I feel like we've been blindsided without time to consult, meet, etc. given the season and the Associations once a month meeting schedule. Valerie Vann ps (I don't think right now I can make either a Mon or Tues meeting) angela wrote: > > Andy I can call the meeting but I can't make it... I have another meeting to > attend.. there are only a few of us that have expressed concern.. Bruce and > me really. Dan is now thinking about backing out... seems you are OK as is > and so is Steve... Dennis and Ian have not jumped in... it appears the > board does not have a clear position so it would seem to me to make a > statement for the board would not be appropraite... I have no problem > basically going with your #3...but I will say we did all get the mailer from > the city... and we didn't do anything...but I can do that... speak for me > but as president ask for more time... > > aw > > "Andrew P. Wallace" wrote: > > Angela, > > I think we need to be more aggressive in this matter. And I > believe the association MUST take some action. The Guideline > Revisions as put forward by Esther and as discussed in numerous > emails is directly related to our neighborhood. In fact, the > originial guidelines were a major motivation in establishing our > Neighborhood Association. > > For the Association not to take a position essentially makes the > Association meaningless. > > By Tuesday, the Association must take one of three positions: > > 1) Support the Guideline Revisions > 2) Do not Support the Guideline Revisions > 3) Desire Additional Time to Solicit Feedback From the Community > > Personnaly, I support them. And I think Esther has done a good > job at taking input from the community with an attempt to balance > growth and conservation. However, it is clear that others have a > different position. And they have a right to express this. > > You should call a Special Meeting as proposed in the By-law > revisions for Monday night. While we may not be able to get the > item officially pulled from the Agenda (if that is what the > Assoication desires), at least our position could be heard at the > City Council meeting on Tuesday. > > Best Regards, > Andy > > > [Andrew P. Wallace] -----Original Message----- > From: oldnorth-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > [mailto:oldnorth-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us]On Behalf Of > angela > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:17 PM > To: John Lofland; members at oldnorthdavis.com > Subject: Re: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. > > HI guys...I've had time to think this over and I'm not > comfortable speaking for the neighborhood... this was > one thing we spent much time discussion (speaking for > everyone)... we didn't want this group to speak without > consent and we have not sought it... I am going to send > an email to the council speaking on my behalf... > hopefully others will do so... I think some are > interested but just don't like to make waves... so I'll > paddle enough for them. > > > aw > > John Lofland wrote: > > 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 > 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)_______________________________________________ > oldnorth mailing list > oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > ondboard mailing list > ondboard at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/ondboard -- Valerie Vann valerie at vanngroup.com ---------------------------------------------- "Would be a heck of a place to lose a cow in" Ebenezer Bryce, on first sight of the canyon that bears his name http://www.nps.gov/brca/home.htm From awillson at pacbell.net Sun Dec 14 18:25:23 2003 From: awillson at pacbell.net (angela) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:25:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [OldNorthBoard] RE: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. In-Reply-To: <3FDD0D58.F0E94B57@vanngroup.com> Message-ID: <20031215022523.36872.qmail@web80510.mail.yahoo.com> I have sent a letter to the council members asking them to postpone..I've done this not as president but as a resident. I think the more emails they get the better... I am going to the meeting on Tuesday and will speak to the issue...hope many will. Again, if you all want to meet on Monday, please let it be known...as I said I can't make it ... I have a board meeting to attend. Angela Valerie Vann wrote: True, we did all get "noticed", but I wasn't aware anybody had concerns, despite the apparent inconsistency between ways the West side of G Street between 5th & 7th has been treated all along (leading to confusion about what the COOP is allowed to do for one thing). Now this "densification" business being applied to Old North (with or without the West side of G) is a whole different ball game that we've heard nothing about before now. How can densification be conceivably compatible with a genuine conservation and preservation of Old North as a residential neighborhood with historic character? Is the City just talking about preserving the appearance of the buildings from the streets, or actually conserving the NEIGHBORHOOD? I feel like we've been blindsided without time to consult, meet, etc. given the season and the Associations once a month meeting schedule. Valerie Vann ps (I don't think right now I can make either a Mon or Tues meeting) angela wrote: > > Andy I can call the meeting but I can't make it... I have another meeting to > attend.. there are only a few of us that have expressed concern.. Bruce and > me really. Dan is now thinking about backing out... seems you are OK as is > and so is Steve... Dennis and Ian have not jumped in... it appears the > board does not have a clear position so it would seem to me to make a > statement for the board would not be appropraite... I have no problem > basically going with your #3...but I will say we did all get the mailer from > the city... and we didn't do anything...but I can do that... speak for me > but as president ask for more time... > > aw > > "Andrew P. Wallace" wrote: > > Angela, > > I think we need to be more aggressive in this matter. And I > believe the association MUST take some action. The Guideline > Revisions as put forward by Esther and as discussed in numerous > emails is directly related to our neighborhood. In fact, the > originial guidelines were a major motivation in establishing our > Neighborhood Association. > > For the Association not to take a position essentially makes the > Association meaningless. > > By Tuesday, the Association must take one of three positions: > > 1) Support the Guideline Revisions > 2) Do not Support the Guideline Revisions > 3) Desire Additional Time to Solicit Feedback From the Community > > Personnaly, I support them. And I think Esther has done a good > job at taking input from the community with an attempt to balance > growth and conservation. However, it is clear that others have a > different position. And they have a right to express this. > > You should call a Special Meeting as proposed in the By-law > revisions for Monday night. While we may not be able to get the > item officially pulled from the Agenda (if that is what the > Assoication desires), at least our position could be heard at the > City Council meeting on Tuesday. > > Best Regards, > Andy > > > [Andrew P. Wallace] -----Original Message----- > From: oldnorth-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us > [mailto:oldnorth-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us]On Behalf Of > angela > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:17 PM > To: John Lofland; members at oldnorthdavis.com > Subject: Re: [OldNorth] council agenda for Tues. > > HI guys...I've had time to think this over and I'm not > comfortable speaking for the neighborhood... this was > one thing we spent much time discussion (speaking for > everyone)... we didn't want this group to speak without > consent and we have not sought it... I am going to send > an email to the council speaking on my behalf... > hopefully others will do so... I think some are > interested but just don't like to make waves... so I'll > paddle enough for them. > > > aw > > John Lofland wrote: > > 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 > 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)_______________________________________________ > oldnorth mailing list > oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > ondboard mailing list > ondboard at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/ondboard -- Valerie Vann valerie at vanngroup.com ---------------------------------------------- "Would be a heck of a place to lose a cow in" Ebenezer Bryce, on first sight of the canyon that bears his name http://www.nps.gov/brca/home.htm _______________________________________________ ondboard mailing list ondboard at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/ondboard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From awillson at pacbell.net Sun Dec 14 18:29:17 2003 From: awillson at pacbell.net (angela) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:29:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [OldNorth] emali to council members In-Reply-To: <3FDD0D58.F0E94B57@vanngroup.com> Message-ID: <20031215022917.85223.qmail@web80507.mail.yahoo.com> Hi everyone...here is what I sent to the council : I am writing to you not as president of the ONDNA but instead as a resident of Old North. I watched the Tuesday November 9th meeing and I would like to comment on two issues you addressed. But first as you are aware we have been working on many issues and two that we have been working on with city assistance; 1) parking and 2) 5th and F Street traffic calming. Additionally we have been discussing 530 Fst and the R2 zone ordinance. The two areas I?d like to discuss are parking and R2. 1. I believe the 1 ? parking restriction downtown is likely to be a great solution for access to shopping and I applaud you in a creative solution. This being said, it will only increase our neighborhood problem. As our neighbor John Laughlin pointed out last Tuesday, WE are the only non-restricted area anywhere near downtown. We submitted a petition this summer to Public Works to assist us with our concerns and we have now been included in a parking study that included the downtown area. Were any of the other restricted areas included in larger studies? Of course a restriction in one area will impact another, so since we are the last to seek assistance, it is now being viewed as a city wide problem. Until the overall problem is solved we become the brunt of the effect. The ONDNA association has agreed to work patiently with the city, but depending on the time it takes for the study, my patients as a resident may thin. 2. When the guidelines were established much time was spend on the limits for secondary structures. Never did we realize that due to the R2 zoning one could simply add a second structure with less strict limits to a property parcel. I was dumb struck when Mr. Ted Puntillo thought the issue on R2 in OND was the perfect solution to the infill concern. Of course he did, it does not impact his living conditions. As I see it the City of Davis has to make a decision between two opposing questions? Do we want growth? Do we not want growth? If we chose not to have growth the byproduct will be simple supply sided economics, property values will increase. If the choice it for growth, there are now two more questions to be asked. Is this growth accomplished by infill or by building in the surrounding unoccupied lands? The voters chose not to use the unoccupied land (to maintain open spaces) when measures J was placed before them. This measure was not offered as an either or; either use the open spaces or grow by infill. I moved to Davis about 5 years ago and only wanted to live in the Old North area because of its charm. Peter Gunther presented a very passionate speech in his limited 3 minutes on Tuesday expressing concern about the impact of additional two story building would have on our neighborhood. The question was asked if the neighbors of Old North had abjections on the R2, I know I do. I also know there are others who do, that being said those who want to add a second structure would not be in favor of changing the zoning and in fact would likely want looser restrictions. Remember the neighborhood associations are run by volunteers with commitments other than keeping on top of all the issues that affect our neighborhood. And judging from the number of times our name was mentioned last night, we are in the middle of many of your topics. Not to mention that on Wednesday the 10th, we are meeting with the Police Dept. representatives to discuss traffic and parking in our area. I am totally amiss of the reason for infill! All introductory psychology classes discuss the studies on the overpopulation of rats in a restricted area, they start killing each other. Davis speaks of being a community built on ecological concern, and we all know the more concrete and structures in an area, the more the temperature increases. Not good for the trees, the air and the citizens. I maybe pessimistic, but I believe that the eventual usage of the surrounding developed and undeveloped agricultural long will eventually be converted to residential or shopping developments. It is likely I?ll not be around long enough to see the demise of Old North Davis or the development of the undeveloped lands, but to stuff more and more people into a neighborhood that has the smallest lots in town speaks of lunacy. When I bought my home my realtor spoke of my home being of historic value and the property would have additionally value in the future because the city would some day need to grow and there were only two unrestricted areas for growth. I thought she was kidding me. Is this the plan, to use our historic area as retail and business area? I am asking that you consider pulling this item from your calendar until the residents of OND have had an opportunity to evaluate your proposal, and to consider the possibility of changing the zoning to R1. Sincerely, Angela Willson 301 6th Street -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From SCGInc at pacbell.net Sun Dec 14 20:29:04 2003 From: SCGInc at pacbell.net (Thomas Cross) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:29:04 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] John Letter Message-ID: John: There seems to be a hole in you argument. If you argument is that everywhere should have the same density. How can we justify not developing the city parks. I am sure you have nothing better to do. My suggesting is to get a hobby that you know something about and DO NOT sent the letter to the enterprise. Just my humble opinion. Tom -- ************************** Thomas Cross P.O. Box 2275 Davis, CA 95617-2275 (530) 750-3788 Phone & Fax SCGInc at pacbell.net From dequickert at omsoft.com Sun Dec 14 20:59:46 2003 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:59:46 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: [OldNorthBoard] Message-ID: <01C3C285.3500CE30.dequickert@omsoft.com> Andy wrote: >For the Association not to take a position essentially >makes the Association meaningless. I must disagree with that... not taking a position means just that, we are not taking a position - at this time. Let me emphasize for those who don't know, I am adamantly opposed to the R2 zoning and think we are quite dense enough. I will work for the downzoning to R1. I just don't think now, on this particuar vote, is a good time. For one, we would need a *unanimous* vote of the 3 council members to *change* this zoning. That includes Ted Puntillo. That isn't going to happen. This aspect of the zoning ordinance - the R2 Consevation District - has been known for quite some time. It has always been stated (by staff such as Esther) that the issue of downzoning to R1 was in their view but not practical for them at this time, and could/would be taken up later. But the Association and nearly all of its concerned members did not pursue the issue. Because this issue has been known to exist with this zoning, and because there have been numerous potential times for us and residents to weigh in on it, and because we have mostly not done so - because of all that, it would be in my opinion rather impolitic of us to now say, "wait, no fair!". I think the Association would look a little silly as a result. Far better in my opinion for us to realize that we may have missed the ball, and accept that we didn't voice ourselves when the opportunity was there. It's important to realize that nothing is lost here - at this time. Yes, we need to be heard about 'densification'. Yes, we need to address the R2 vs R1 issue. But I think that now is not a good time to go head-to-head with the Council on it. I say we revisit the issue when we have a city council where 3 of 5 members aren't recusing themselves - because there is no way in hell we're going to win with the current crew. Harrington likes infill. Puntillo is rabid about it. Asmundsen appears to favor it. Remember, it will take all 3 to change the zoning to R1. Time is on our side. Haste will gain us nothing in this one. Here's a proposal - let's send the Council this message: --- We are strongly in favor of the Conservation District zoning. Let's get that passed. But the issue of zoning density - R1 vs R2 - needs to be addressed. Therefore, the Association will begin working with neighborhood residents to discuss the issue and get a sense of what the neighborhood wants. We look forward to working with City staff to develop appropriate zoning for the neighborhood. --- (or words to that effect). How's that? Dan From zesmith at hotmail.com Sun Dec 14 21:10:24 2003 From: zesmith at hotmail.com (Z Smith) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:10:24 +0000 Subject: [OldNorth] Reality check on density and R-2 Old North Message-ID: Folks, Peter brought up the issue of downzoning at an Old North meeting a month or so back, and has made his desire for R-1 clear for, well, as long as I've known him. Some people prefer R-2, others would like to see even higher densities allowed. But, despite the many objections I have to the proposed R-2CD ordinance on the table, I really think we should get it passed and then work these issues through in a friendly fashion. Here's why I don't think the ordinance makes a huge difference on density: In light of recent developments, the reality is that there isn't as much of a difference between R-2 and R-1 as one might at first think. * The Davis-wide second-unit ordinance passed in June (allowing second units on *all* R-1 lots--forced by a state law intended to slow sprawl), means that both R-1 and R-2 lots can have 2 dwelling units. * The "large home ordinance" passed last year (applying city-wide, triggering design review for Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.4), and the more rigorous limit imposed by the proposed R-2 CD ordinance for Old North) of an absolute limit of 0.4 work to limit bulk and overall floor area. When you combine these two restrictions, the difference betwen R-1 and R-2 without a special Conservation District is just this: * an R-1 lot can have a 3-5 bedroom house and a rental cottage: 2 dwelling units, 4-6 bedrooms total * an R-2 lot can have the same as an R-1 lot, or it can have a duplex or two free-standing small houses-- but once you factor in the usable open space, setback, lot coverage, onsite parking and FAR requirements, you end up with 2 dwelling units with 2-3 bedrooms each, or 4-6 bedrooms total. ... so you get the same number of dwelling units and the same population allowed either way. The difference in moving from the R-2 applying to Old North today and the proposed R-2 CD is that the Design Review process already in place since the passage of the Traditional Neighborhood Guildelines--a process that is vague and open to the caprice and whim of whichever planner your project gets--would become somewhat more explicit with the CD. Now, unlike Peter or John, I actually live next to one of those ugly duplexes that would presumably be illegal if we were to go to R-1. But, truth to tell, it would be illegal under the proposed R-2CD as well--its setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, open space, and onsite parking all fail the new proposed ordinance. It is also ugly as sin. But I do like the fact that it is affordable to grad students and single professionals, giving some variety to our neighborhood. It's a toss-up for me. Soooo, as someone who obviously values our neighborhood and its qualities, I'd like to recommend that we *not* de-rail the R-2 CD. Let's get our act together as a Neighborhood on this R-1/R-2 issue (it will take many months) and get the protection and clarity afforded by the R-2CD tied down now before we risk a change of Council giving us something we like even less. Z _________________________________________________________________ Cell phone ?switch? rules are taking effect ? find out more here. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Sun Dec 14 21:44:28 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:44:28 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: [OldNorthBoard] In-Reply-To: <01C3C285.3500CE30.dequickert@omsoft.com> References: <01C3C285.3500CE30.dequickert@omsoft.com> Message-ID: Dan, Simply as a matter of fact, the measure is dead if Harrington or any one of the other two changes her or his vote. This is dead level reality. Three votes are not needed in this situation. Only one negative vote is required. Check out my claim, please. I therefore urge you to reconsider this matter. And, for the moment, I put to the side the several other issues you address. Thanks. John >Andy wrote: >>For the Association not to take a position essentially >>makes the Association meaningless. > >I must disagree with that... > >not taking a position means just that, we are not taking a position - at >this time. > >Let me emphasize for those who don't know, I am adamantly opposed to the R2 >zoning and think we are quite dense enough. I will work for the downzoning >to R1. I just don't think now, on this particuar vote, is a good time. > >For one, we would need a *unanimous* vote of the 3 council members to >*change* this zoning. That includes Ted Puntillo. That isn't going to >happen. > >This aspect of the zoning ordinance - the R2 Consevation District - has >been known for quite some time. >It has always been stated (by staff such as Esther) that the issue of >downzoning to R1 was in their view but not practical for them at this time, >and could/would be taken up later. But the Association and nearly all of >its concerned members did not pursue the issue. > >Because this issue has been known to exist with this zoning, and because >there have been numerous potential times for us and residents to weigh in >on it, and because we have mostly not done so - because of all that, it >would be in my opinion rather impolitic of us to now say, "wait, no fair!". >I think the Association would look a little silly as a result. > >Far better in my opinion for us to realize that we may have missed the >ball, and accept that we didn't voice ourselves when the opportunity was >there. > >It's important to realize that nothing is lost here - at this time. > >Yes, we need to be heard about 'densification'. Yes, we need to address the >R2 vs R1 issue. But I think that now is not a good time to go head-to-head >with the Council on it. > >I say we revisit the issue when we have a city council where 3 of 5 members >aren't recusing themselves - because there is no way in hell we're going to >win with the current crew. Harrington likes infill. Puntillo is rabid about >it. Asmundsen appears to favor it. Remember, it will take all 3 to change >the zoning to R1. > >Time is on our side. Haste will gain us nothing in this one. > >Here's a proposal - let's send the Council this message: >--- >We are strongly in favor of the Conservation District zoning. Let's get >that passed. >But the issue of zoning density - R1 vs R2 - needs to be addressed. >Therefore, the Association will begin working with neighborhood residents >to discuss the issue and get a sense of what the neighborhood wants. We >look forward to working with City staff to develop appropriate zoning for >the neighborhood. >--- >(or words to that effect). > >How's that? > >Dan > > >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Sun Dec 14 22:20:27 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:20:27 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Z, Are you saying that Council Member Ted Puntillo is wrong when he declares about the measure in question that "This is densification -- big time!" If you do not respond otherwise, I and others will conclude that you think Council Member Puntillo is wrong. Can we tell him that you think he is wrong? Many thanks. Best, John >Folks, > >Peter brought up the issue of downzoning at an >Old North meeting a month or so back, and has >made his desire for R-1 clear for, well, as long >as I've known him. Some people prefer R-2, >others would like to see even higher densities >allowed. But, despite the many objections I >have to the proposed R-2CD ordinance on the >table, I really think we should get it passed >and then work these issues through in a friendly >fashion. Here's why I don't think the ordinance >makes a huge difference on density: > >In light of recent developments, the reality is >that there isn't as much of a difference between >R-2 and R-1 as one might at first think. > >* The Davis-wide second-unit ordinance passed in >June (allowing second units on *all* R-1 >lots--forced by a state law intended to slow >sprawl), means that both R-1 and R-2 lots can >have 2 dwelling units. >* The "large home ordinance" passed last year >(applying city-wide, triggering design review >for Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.4), and the more >rigorous limit imposed by the proposed R-2 CD >ordinance for Old North) of an absolute limit of >0.4 work to limit bulk and overall floor area. > >When you combine these two restrictions, the >difference betwen R-1 and R-2 without a special >Conservation District is just this: > > * an R-1 lot can have a 3-5 bedroom house and >a rental cottage: 2 dwelling units, 4-6 bedrooms >total > * an R-2 lot can have the same as an R-1 lot, >or it can have a duplex or two free-standing >small houses-- but once you factor in the usable >open space, setback, lot coverage, onsite >parking and FAR requirements, you end up with 2 >dwelling units with 2-3 bedrooms each, or 4-6 >bedrooms total. > >... so you get the same number of dwelling units >and the same population allowed either way. > >The difference in moving from the R-2 applying >to Old North today and the proposed R-2 CD is >that the Design Review process already in place >since the passage of the Traditional >Neighborhood Guildelines--a process that is >vague and open to the caprice and whim of >whichever planner your project gets--would >become somewhat more explicit with the CD. > >Now, unlike Peter or John, I actually live next >to one of those ugly duplexes that would >presumably be illegal if we were to go to R-1. >But, truth to tell, it would be illegal under >the proposed R-2CD as well--its setbacks, lot >coverage, FAR, open space, and onsite parking >all fail the new proposed ordinance. It is also >ugly as sin. But I do like the fact that it is >affordable to grad students and single >professionals, giving some variety to our >neighborhood. It's a toss-up for me. > >Soooo, as someone who obviously values our >neighborhood and its qualities, I'd like to >recommend that we *not* de-rail the R-2 CD. >Let's get our act together as a Neighborhood on >this R-1/R-2 issue (it will take many months) >and get the protection and clarity afforded by >the R-2CD tied down now before we risk a change >of Council giving us something we like even less. > >Z > >_________________________________________________________________ >Cell phone ?switch? rules are taking effect ? >find out more here. >http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx > >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth From dequickert at omsoft.com Sun Dec 14 22:30:52 2003 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:30:52 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: [OldNorthBoard] Message-ID: <01C3C291.EF448F00.dequickert@omsoft.com> On Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:44 PM, John Lofland wrote: > Dan, > > Simply as a matter of fact, the measure is dead if Harrington or any > one of the other two changes her or his vote. Right - and that is a problem, I think. As Z Smith said, we want the Conservation District portion to be passed - and there are definitely the 3 requisite votes for that at this time - but we don't know what the next Council will look like. We need to get it passed now. The area is *now* zoned R2. Passing the ordinance in question will not change that. Defeating the ordinance, however, puts the whole ball of wax in uncertainty -- but cannot result in downzoning, because downzoning would take all 3 votes - which we know are not there now. So opposition to the ordinance appears to me to risk the Conservation District, with no chance for benefit. Dan From ap_wallace at yahoo.com Sun Dec 14 23:23:31 2003 From: ap_wallace at yahoo.com (Andrew P. Wallace) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:23:31 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: [OldNorthBoard] In-Reply-To: <01C3C285.3500CE30.dequickert@omsoft.com> Message-ID: > Andy wrote: > >For the Association not to take a position essentially > >makes the Association meaningless. > > I must disagree with that... > > not taking a position means just that, we are not taking a position - at > this time. Dan, my point was is that we must make some formal statement from the neighborhood association. Addressing the City Council only as individuals and not through the association is simply not as effective. Furthermore, in all the email discussion, there has been very little specific criticism of the work proposed in the Guideline Revisions. I don't see the "densification" statement as an issue directly related to the guidelines. The current requirements of setbacks, open space, parking places, etc are what define what can and can not be built, not one person's statement on densification. The primary issue on the table is the R1/R2. Esther has said repeatedly in many presentations that this is an ongoing issue and must be fully evaluated at another time. But, as Z has clarified, the practical difference between R1/R2 is minimal. With that said, I am in favor of the position that Dan put forward below (specific wording aside), the statement should also include something related to the parking situation/survey. Regards, Andy > --- > We are strongly in favor of the Conservation District zoning. Let's get > that passed. > But the issue of zoning density - R1 vs R2 - needs to be addressed. > Therefore, the Association will begin working with neighborhood residents > to discuss the issue and get a sense of what the neighborhood wants. We > look forward to working with City staff to develop appropriate zoning for > the neighborhood. > --- > (or words to that effect). > > How's that? > > Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > oldnorth mailing list > oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth