[OldNorth] (no subject)

[John Lofland]

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