[OldNorth] emali to council members

[angela]

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 ½ 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: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20031214/1d002c72/attachment.html>