[OldNorth] R-2

[angela]

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 <pgunther at pacbell.net> 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: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20031231/d877310a/attachment.html>