From awillson at pacbell.net Tue Dec 16 17:41:26 2003 From: awillson at pacbell.net (angela) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:41:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [OldNorth] RE: [OldNorthBoard] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20031217014126.57885.qmail@web80502.mail.yahoo.com> Hi everyone... so the 2nd reading has been posponed... what would you all like to do...I'm off for the next few weeks so as soon as I've rested...I'm ready to rock 'n roll ...so what is everyone up to? Angela "Andrew P. Wallace" wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ oldnorth mailing list oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stracy at davis.com Tue Dec 16 19:18:01 2003 From: stracy at davis.com (Tracy Marshall) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:18:01 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] RE: [OldNorthBoard] In-Reply-To: <20031217014126.57885.qmail@web80502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9EAD8E3A-303F-11D8-B774-000393BD0562@davis.com> We are leaving next Wednesday or so, and staying gone until New Year's. Steve Tracy. On Tuesday, December 16, 2003, at 05:41 PM, angela wrote: > Hi everyone... so the 2nd reading has been posponed... what would you > all like to do...I'm off for the next few weeks so as soon as I've > rested...I'm ready to rock 'n roll ...so what is everyone up to? > ? > Angela > > "Andrew P. Wallace" wrote: > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2703 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Tue Dec 16 19:18:36 2003 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:18:36 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] R-2CD Association meeting In-Reply-To: <20031217014126.57885.qmail@web80502.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031217014126.57885.qmail@web80502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: My take on the R-2CD topic is to leave it alone until after the turn of the year. Then there might be a special Association meeting on it in early January that comes well before the second reading by the City Council. But, announcing the day and time of that meeting within a day or two would be good, so that people can put it on their calenders at this time. I am not certain of the date of the Council second reading, but I have heard that it is January 13. If that is so, then some day between January 2 and ? John Lofland At 5:41 PM -0800 12/16/03, angela wrote: >Hi everyone... so the 2nd reading has been posponed... what would >you all like to do...I'm off for the next few weeks so as soon as >I've rested...I'm ready to rock 'n roll ...so what is everyone up to? > >Angela From info at cognitiveliberty.org Tue Dec 16 15:42:54 2003 From: info at cognitiveliberty.org (CCLE) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:42:54 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] 530 F Street Message-ID: Hi Everyone - Wednesday evening (12/17) the Planning Commission will be reviewing the revised plan for adding a second home on the lot at 530 F Street. This is the home right next to ours -- to the south. The project is the first item on the agenda at 7:00 pm. Richard and I will be going to express our concerns with the project. 1. The proposed 2-story building has a few cosmetic changes, but in essence it is little improved from the previous plan. The square footage is 1,122, only 50 SQ FT less than the previous plan. 2. The proposed structure has an FAR of 51.6% (20 percent over the maximum FAR). 3. Because the proposed structure is over 20 feet tall and directly to the South of our back yard, it will not only loom above us, but also cast a very significant shadow. The architect's Solar Access Study shows that the proposed building will shade a big portion of our back yard most of the day. It will blocks just about all morning sun! This is especially upsetting to us because our neighbor misleadingly showed us the Solar Access Study, but only for 12 noon -- the time of the day when the least shadow is cast. (We didn't see the full Solar Study until we looked at the actual plans at the Planning Commission.) 4. The proposed building will present a significantly altered profile from Sixth Street. We are also concerned that if this home is allowed to go up as currently designed, it will later be used to justify a large structure like the one the Co-op has been talking about building along the other side of our back yard. (The Monster House on the corner of Sixth and G is what the Co-op already uses for comparison purposes...see latest issue of Co-op members' newspaper) Richard and I are not opposed to our neighbors (530 F Street, or the Co-op) improving their properties and/or adding more living spaces. But we are opposed to excess and greed. Especially when it hits so close to home. To share your thoughts on the project, please come to the planning commission meeting Wednesday night. with good wishes, Wrye and Richard 704 Sixth Street 530.753. 9662