From pgunther at pacbell.net Wed Dec 31 14:35:26 2003 From: pgunther at pacbell.net (Peter Gunther) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:35:26 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] R-2 Message-ID: To begin with I apologize for this semi-coherent, rambling message. Taking care of the Toots leaves little time for either thought or editing. That said, I think there are 2 relevant points in the R-2 discussion: First: this is a time for the board to act, and to do so unanimously. The various individual opinions about down zoning are irrelevant. Board members should not be voting their individual opinions, but standing up for the correct implementation of the design guidelines the entire neighborhood fought for. The neighborhood?s sentiments in this regard were already recognized and codified by limiting all accessory structures to one story and 480 square feet. Though there may be members of the board that disagree with this policy that debate has come and gone. There can be no doubt that this was what the neighborhood wanted. And it would be hard to argue for the legitimacy of the association and/or its board of directors as representative of the neighborhood if it spoke with anything other than a unified and assertive voice on this issue.? As the 530 F Street proposal clearly shows the only way to implement the spirit and intent of the neighborhood is to drop the R-2 zoning and down zone Old North to the same R-1 status enjoyed by almost every other single family neighborhood in town.? Much of the R-1 area around the university contains lots ranging in size from 8,000 to 20,000 sq. feet. College Park, Miller, Elmwood, Parkside, Oak, Douglas, Mulberry, Vassar, Peach, Plum, Stanford, Anderson, Antioch, Reed, Eureka, and on and on and on. If these areas are R-1 what possible reason could account for our area being R-2 other than that the city has long treated Old North as if it was destined for rental ghetto instead of a place for owner-occupied single family homes. Second: we cannot count on staff showing any sensitivity to our issues if we leave the R-1 battle for later.? Bill Emlen has already done his best to sabotage the design guidelines. He told Dan Quickert and the Council the 2nd story deck proposal would get a full hearing at a neighborhood meeting. He then promised, in private, to grant the project administrative approval with no public discussion at all. When the Planning Commission wanted to look at it, staff said they couldn?t. When the Planning Commission demanded it, Emlen rerouted the project to the Historic Resources Commission with a glowing staff report and won unanimous approval. As far as he was concerned that was enough. It was never going to be considered by the Planning Commission, if Emlen had his way. To make sure of that he contacted Dan and I, individually, and leaned on us to not appeal to the Planning Commission because he had all the votes and it would be a waste of both staff and Commission time.? We ignored him, Dan appealed, and we won a unanimous decision by the Commission that a 2nd story deck would clearly subvert the spirit and intent, if not the letter, of the design guidelines. What Emlen thought he was doing, and why, is anybody?s guess. Corrupt is an awfully strong word. But whatever it was, he made it clear that he didn?t give a damn about the neighborhood?s opinion or the process that led to the guidelines.? Which brings us to the process surrounding the 530 F street proposal. The staff person handling it had no knowledge of any of the background leading up to the Old North Guidelines.? And when informed of the background, he could see no logical connection between our fight to limit accessory structures and his intent to approve a 1200 square foot 2 story second dwelling. Worse still, he completely misinterpreted the application of the floor area ratio (FAR) guidelines. In his opinion there was no reason those limits should be any constraint at all. If Donna Hunt had not been on the Planning Commission this project would be heading for approval as it stands.?? As a member of the committee which developed the FAR policies, Donna had to instruct staff that a project exceeding the basic FAR limits could do so only if it could be shown to have no negative impact on the surrounding neighbors. In this project, as with the 2nd story deck plan, staff was not only ignored our neighborhood?s concerns, but acted as aggressive advocates of each proposal.? A number of times over the years I have heard complaints that ?staff seems to have an agenda of its own?. The reality of that situation never sank in until the past year or so. Now, it is crystal clear.? Either we stand up to Emlen and fight for what we believe is right, or he will ram whatever he likes down our throats. Staff held the University Avenue area hostage for years, refusing to draft appropriate zoning for that area long after more restrictive zoning had been promised. So, yes, it could be a fight to get the R-1 approved. But it looks like we are going to have to fight staff on a regular basis anyway and after hearing what Ted Puntillo said about our neighborhood, it seems we had better start fighting now . ======================= Regarding the Council?s actions last month, it should be mentioned that Ruth lives closer to the University than anybody in Old North, and her 14,000 sq. ft. lot should be able to handle at least a four-plex in the backyard. Her neighbors on Miller own lots from 8,000-12,000 square ft., and in College Park from 14,000 to 20,000 square ft. If Ruth is serious about densification she should rezone her neighborhood to R-2 or, better yet, R-3. Ted, of course, probably thinks none of this should affect him since he lives (if what I have been told is true and he lives at the same Montgomery Rd. address as his father) on a 10,000 sq. foot lot, surrounded by lots ranging from 15,000 to 20,000 sq feet (and up to 40,000 sq. feet in the immediately adjacent Old Willow Bank area that is still in the county). As he opens his front door he looks out on acres and acres of undeveloped rural county land. So where the hell does he get off telling us we need to turn Old North Davis into R-2 hell on our tiny 5,700 sq. foot lots. And density and infill isn?t just about getting college kids nearer the university, it is also about putting together a compact city that can grow with as little impact on surrounding ag land as possible. That being the case, Ted should either lead the movement to rezone his area R-3 or he should leave us alone. It is put up or shut up time. And you can bet, whatever Ted says, his neighbors and Ruth?s neighbors would run both of them out of town if they suggested that their property be re-zoned R-2 or R-3. In all reality, the entire densification movement will begin and end in Old North Davis. And I don't see much point in that. By the way, anybody wishing to see the various lot sizes of other parts of town can get that information, lot by lot, off the net at: http://www.city.davis.ca.us/gis/parcel/ai_Frameset.cfm.? By delving ever deeper into the city map set you can get the actual parcel dimensions of every lot in town. Thanks for your time and attention . . . . . peter gunther -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 8740 bytes Desc: not available URL: From awillson at pacbell.net Wed Dec 31 15:53:51 2003 From: awillson at pacbell.net (angela) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:53:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [OldNorth] R-2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20031231235351.87131.qmail@web80601.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Peter not at all rambling... I agree with you on the R-1 and think we need to work towards this ... as you stated it was what we all thought the intent was. As for the 530 F they are a sort-of different issue... as best as I understand it anyway... I have suggested a meeting for the first week of January... if we are going to have a meeting it is important to post it so... what does everyone want to do.. Steve should be back soon, I am pretty sure Bruce and Dan are intersted... have not heard from Dennis or Ian...I know John is intersted... so what say you all? angela Peter Gunther wrote: To begin with I apologize for this semi-coherent, rambling message. Taking care of the Toots leaves little time for either thought or editing. That said, I think there are 2 relevant points in the R-2 discussion: First: this is a time for the board to act, and to do so unanimously. The various individual opinions about down zoning are irrelevant. Board members should not be voting their individual opinions, but standing up for the correct implementation of the design guidelines the entire neighborhood fought for. The neighborhood?s sentiments in this regard were already recognized and codified by limiting all accessory structures to one story and 480 square feet. Though there may be members of the board that disagree with this policy that debate has come and gone. There can be no doubt that this was what the neighborhood wanted. And it would be hard to argue for the legitimacy of the association and/or its board of directors as representative of the neighborhood if it spoke with anything other than a unified and assertive voice on this issue. As the 530 F Street proposal clearly shows the only way to implement the spirit and intent of the neighborhood is to drop the R-2 zoning and down zone Old North to the same R-1 status enjoyed by almost every other single family neighborhood in town. Much of the R-1 area around the university contains lots ranging in size from 8,000 to 20,000 sq. feet. College Park, Miller, Elmwood, Parkside, Oak, Douglas, Mulberry, Vassar, Peach, Plum, Stanford, Anderson, Antioch, Reed, Eureka, and on and on and on. If these areas are R-1 what possible reason could account for our area being R-2 other than that the city has long treated Old North as if it was destined for rental ghetto instead of a place for owner-occupied single family homes. Second: we cannot count on staff showing any sensitivity to our issues if we leave the R-1 battle for later. Bill Emlen has already done his best to sabotage the design guidelines. He told Dan Quickert and the Council the 2nd story deck proposal would get a full hearing at a neighborhood meeting. He then promised, in private, to grant the project administrative approval with no public discussion at all. When the Planning Commission wanted to look at it, staff said they couldn?t. When the Planning Commission demanded it, Emlen rerouted the project to the Historic Resources Commission with a glowing staff report and won unanimous approval. As far as he was concerned that was enough. It was never going to be considered by the Planning Commission, if Emlen had his way. To make sure of that he contacted Dan and I, individually, and leaned on us to not appeal to the Planning Commission because he had all the votes and it would be a waste of both staff and Commission time. We ignored him, Dan appealed, and we won a unanimous decision by the Commission that a 2nd story deck would clearly subvert the spirit and intent, if not the letter, of the design guidelines. What Emlen thought he was doing, and why, is anybody?s guess. Corrupt is an awfully strong word. But whatever it was, he made it clear that he didn?t give a damn about the neighborhood?s opinion or the process that led to the guidelines. Which brings us to the process surrounding the 530 F street proposal. The staff person handling it had no knowledge of any of the background leading up to the Old North Guidelines. And when informed of the background, he could see no logical connection between our fight to limit accessory structures and his intent to approve a 1200 square foot 2 story second dwelling. Worse still, he completely misinterpreted the application of the floor area ratio (FAR) guidelines. In his opinion there was no reason those limits should be any constraint at all. If Donna Hunt had not been on the Planning Commission this project would be heading for approval as it stands. As a member of the committee which developed the FAR policies, Donna had to instruct staff that a project exceeding the basic FAR limits could do so only if it could be shown to have no negative impact on the surrounding neighbors. In this project, as with the 2nd story deck plan, staff was not only ignored our neighborhood?s concerns, but acted as aggressive advocates of each proposal. A number of times over the years I have heard complaints that ?staff seems to have an agenda of its own?. The reality of that situation never sank in until the past year or so. Now, it is crystal clear. Either we stand up to Emlen and fight for what we believe is right, or he will ram whatever he likes down our throats. Staff held the University Avenue area hostage for years, refusing to draft appropriate zoning for that area long after more restrictive zoning had been promised. So, yes, it could be a fight to get the R-1 approved. But it looks like we are going to have to fight staff on a regular basis anyway and after hearing what Ted Puntillo said about our neighborhood, it seems we had better start fighting now . ======================= Regarding the Council?s actions last month, it should be mentioned that Ruth lives closer to the University than anybody in Old North, and her 14,000 sq. ft. lot should be able to handle at least a four-plex in the backyard. Her neighbors on Miller own lots from 8,000-12,000 square ft., and in College Park from 14,000 to 20,000 square ft. If Ruth is serious about densification she should rezone her neighborhood to R-2 or, better yet, R-3. Ted, of course, probably thinks none of this should affect him since he lives (if what I have been told is true and he lives at the same Montgomery Rd. address as his father) on a 10,000 sq. foot lot, surrounded by lots ranging from 15,000 to 20,000 sq feet (and up to 40,000 sq. feet in the immediately adjacent Old Willow Bank area that is still in the county). As he opens his front door he looks out on acres and acres of undeveloped rural county land. So where the hell does he get off telling us we need to turn Old North Davis into R-2 hell on our tiny 5,700 sq. foot lots. And density and infill isn?t just about getting college kids nearer the university, it is also about putting together a compact city that can grow with as little impact on surrounding ag land as possible. That being the case, Ted should either lead the movement to rezone his area R-3 or he should leave us alone. It is put up or shut up time. And you can bet, whatever Ted says, his neighbors and Ruth?s neighbors would run both of them out of town if they suggested that their property be re-zoned R-2 or R-3. In all reality, the entire densification movement will begin and end in Old North Davis. And I don't see much point in that. By the way, anybody wishing to see the various lot sizes of other parts of town can get that information, lot by lot, off the net at: http://www.city.davis.ca.us/gis/parcel/ai_Frameset.cfm. By delving ever deeper into the city map set you can get the actual parcel dimensions of every lot in town. Thanks for your time and attention . . . . . peter gunther _______________________________________________ oldnorth mailing list oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dequickert at omsoft.com Wed Dec 31 16:15:52 2003 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:15:52 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] R-2 Message-ID: <01C3CFB9.5D441C30.dequickert@omsoft.com> I'm up for a meeting... might it be a good idea to get as many neighborhood people as we can, too? On Wednesday, December 31, 2003 3:54 PM, angela wrote: > Hi Peter not at all rambling... I agree with you on the R-1 and think we need to work towards this ... as you stated it was what we all thought the intent was. As for the 530 F they are a sort-of different issue... as best as I understand it anyway... I have suggested a meeting for the first week of January... if we are going to have a meeting it is important to post it so... what does everyone want to do.. Steve should be back soon, I am pretty sure Bruce and Dan are intersted... have not heard from Dennis or Ian...I know John is intersted... so what say you all? > > angela From awillson at pacbell.net Wed Dec 31 18:30:57 2003 From: awillson at pacbell.net (angela) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:30:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [OldNorth] R-2 In-Reply-To: <01C3CFB9.5D441C30.dequickert@omsoft.com> Message-ID: <20040101023057.90126.qmail@web80604.mail.yahoo.com> yes that is why I think we need to settle on a date and then send out notices... we could have the meeting here if we can't get someplace else...I'm cleaning so should still be clean in a week... aw Dan Quickert wrote: I'm up for a meeting... might it be a good idea to get as many neighborhood people as we can, too? On Wednesday, December 31, 2003 3:54 PM, angela wrote: > Hi Peter not at all rambling... I agree with you on the R-1 and think we need to work towards this ... as you stated it was what we all thought the intent was. As for the 530 F they are a sort-of different issue... as best as I understand it anyway... I have suggested a meeting for the first week of January... if we are going to have a meeting it is important to post it so... what does everyone want to do.. Steve should be back soon, I am pretty sure Bruce and Dan are intersted... have not heard from Dennis or Ian...I know John is intersted... so what say you all? > > angela _______________________________________________ oldnorth mailing list oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rddd at dcn.davis.ca.us Wed Dec 31 23:30:00 2003 From: rddd at dcn.davis.ca.us (Robin & Dennis) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:30:00 -0800 Subject: Dennis and the topic of the year: [OldNorth] R-2 In-Reply-To: <01C3CFB9.5D441C30.dequickert@omsoft.com> References: <01C3CFB9.5D441C30.dequickert@omsoft.com> Message-ID: This is Dennis checking in. Yes, I'd like to see a January meeting with the R-1 (change to from R-2) as an item for discussion. Dennis At 4:15 PM -0800 12/31/03, Dan Quickert wrote: >I'm up for a meeting... might it be a good idea to get as many neighborhood >people as we can, too? > >On Wednesday, December 31, 2003 3:54 PM, angela wrote: >> Hi Peter not at all rambling... I agree with you on the R-1 and think we >need to work towards this ... as you stated it was what we all thought the >intent was. As for the 530 F they are a sort-of different issue... as best >as I understand it anyway... I have suggested a meeting for the first week >of January... if we are going to have a meeting it is important to post it >so... what does everyone want to do.. Steve should be back soon, I am >pretty sure Bruce and Dan are intersted... have not heard from Dennis or >Ian...I know John is intersted... so what say you all? >> >> angela >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth