From valerie at vanngroup.com Wed Jul 7 08:41:14 2004 From: valerie at vanngroup.com (Valerie Vann) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:41:14 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Parking Permit abuse References: <40E75EDA.D8329AF1@vanngroup.com> Message-ID: <40EC1999.6E5BCA68@vanngroup.com> One thing I've pointed out several times but don't seem to be getting through is that the G Street blocks of Old North probably need to be treated somewhat differently than the rest of the Old North, because we are zoned for commercial uses and have about 50% or greater business use (or business in front, housing on the alley). Most of these businesses don't generate great amounts of traffic, perhaps one car at a time (sign maker, attorney, developer, real estate agent, architect, etc.) There are also two driveways on my block (mine and one other), and these are frequently parked across, especially since the markers on the street have been worn away, and the spot in front of my house is a short one. I would also point out that that F Street between 5th and 8th also has a few driveways, plus 3 bus stops, reducing the number of street parking spaces. I once requested that driveways be "red lined" or marked "No Parking" or with an X or something, the City said "No" and also said I it would be illegal for a resident to do that themselves. Valerie Vann sheryl lynn gerety wrote: > > Several weeks ago Z Smith, Steve Tracy and I sat down with the City Planner, Jim Antonen, the City lawyer, and several folks from the police, planning and traffic departments to try to work out a solution to Old North Parking problems. > We did this because we, like others, were surprised to receive the postcard poll asking if we wanted the standard parking district, the very kind featured in the SacBee story on inner Sacramento parking problems. The parking study request initiated by the ONDNA last year was always coupled with the request we find a means of solving the residents' problems without creating an exclusive zone like those found elsewhere in the City. Our wishes to try something different somehow were lost to standard procedures. > In the meeting, we offered several possible solutions, including that of reserving and marking one spot per property (i.e., there would be a spot in front of my house, the street painted and with a sign, saying the equivalent of "This parking space for the resident of 602 C Street only." Everyone would get such a spot and the balance of street-side parking room would be open to public use. Although not strictly illegal by any law that could be located, the City attorney also could not find law suggesting that such an approach was _legal_, and was unwilling to pursue it. Instead, she offered and everyone found workable the following alternative: > We would create a restricted zone in ON, with spots equal to the number of properties, within an otherwise unrestricted zone. So, for example, there are twenty houses on the two sides of C Street between 6th and 7th. Twenty spots, scattered along both sides of the street, would be painted for a restricted zone; permits to be purchased for a fee like that of other parking zones in Davis (approx. $10/yr). The balance of the spaces (another 20-30) would be unrestricted and could be used by residents who held a permit, residents who did not hold any permit, or anyone else, including downtown employees or students. Permit holders would not have rights to a _particular_ space (that is the element that the City Attorney can not accept, because it would privatize public domain), but would likely find it easy to locate a zoned spot near their home and by convention, over time, it would presumably be the one nearest their house. > A key feature of this system: a property could obtain at most one zoned permit. Any other automobiles they wished to park on the street could go in unzoned spaces. > This system would do several things: it would solve the melting ice-cream/crying baby scenario in which ON homeowners can find no parking within blocks of their houses mid-day when UC-Davis is in session; it satisfies the city; it does not exclude downtown employees and others truly in need of parking by emptying our streets of everyone but ourselves; it does not even require residents purchase a parking permit to park street-side in the neighborhood, including pakring adjacent to their home. There are other problems it avoids that are associated with other schemes (e.g., the number of signs required to effect enforcement). > Perhaps as interesting, it forestalls or, more accurately, severely limits, abuses like those cited in the SacBee article: homeowners who obtain and then derive hefty profit by selling their visitors permits to non-residents. > It was quite a victory to get the diverse opinions and interests at the meeting to agree on a solution, but this one found consensus and we will be working on it with the City. Among the first steps is estimating the cost of curb paint and signs. More information will follow when ONDNA meetings crank up again later this month. The City will require a poll of the neighborhood in which at least 67% respond and 50% are in favor, so we have some work to do, an information campaign and neighborly lobbying. These are hard numbers to achieve given low political participation by renters, absentee owners, those on vacation, etc. But, we got the City to agree not to poll until we had a chance to thoroughly explain the plan to the residents of ON. Please stay involved and be ready to help with the details are worked out. > Z and Steve. . .if I've missed something important here, please add your comments. > Bruce > From valerie at vanngroup.com Wed Jul 7 08:43:41 2004 From: valerie at vanngroup.com (Valerie Vann) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:43:41 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Name Confusion Message-ID: <40EC1A2D.7C404CD3@vanngroup.com> It seems that between Old North and Old East, we have three (at least) "Valerie"s. Suggest we all try to remember to attach last names so we know who's who. :-) Valerie Vann G St, Old North From zesmith at hotmail.com Wed Jul 7 11:30:37 2004 From: zesmith at hotmail.com (Z Smith) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:30:37 +0000 Subject: [OldNorth] Paint-yer-own curb; G St is different Message-ID: Re: Painting your own red curb and/or delineating parallel parking spaces. The enterprising owner of the Bookkeeper (6th & G St) has apparently painted parking spaces on the street herself. I've also noticed that the residual / vestigial curb cuts on either side of D street at around ~630 have what look to be home-painted curbs. Yes, the City is opposed to vigilante curb-painting, but haven't seen them come out with sandblasters to remove them. As to G Street being different because of its commercial tenants. Let's work out a proposal. The one that makes the most sense to me for the rest of the neighborhood is that each lot owner can get one and only one permit, and that it *is not* tied to a specific car. This lets me hand it to the plumber and he can hang it on *his* rear view mirror and park directly in front of my house. For a business on G street, this one floating space would guarantee that sign maker / attorney / etc with a business could just hand it to the one visiting client--they'd park, run in, get the permit, and place it on their rear view mirror. If a retired homeowner who doesn't have a car wants to obtain a permit and then rent it out for a little extra income, I personally don't have a problem with that, though others might. I believe the City does have a problem with that, but I'm not sure. Let's refine that... Z >From: Valerie Vann >To: "Old North Neighborhood Assoc." >Subject: Re: [OldNorth] Parking Permit abuse >Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:41:14 -0700 > >One thing I've pointed out several times but don't seem to be getting >through is that the G Street blocks of Old North probably need to >be treated somewhat differently than the rest of the Old North, because >we are zoned for commercial uses and have about 50% or greater business >use (or business in front, housing on the alley). Most of these businesses >don't generate great amounts of traffic, perhaps one car at a time (sign >maker, attorney, developer, real estate agent, architect, etc.) > >There are also two driveways on my block (mine and one other), and >these are frequently parked across, especially since the markers >on the street have been worn away, and the spot in front of my house >is a short one. > >I would also point out that that F Street between 5th and 8th also >has a few driveways, plus 3 bus stops, reducing the number of street >parking spaces. > >I once requested that driveways be "red lined" or marked "No Parking" >or with an X or something, the City said "No" and also said I it >would be illegal for a resident to do that themselves. > >Valerie Vann > >sheryl lynn gerety wrote: > > > > Several weeks ago Z Smith, Steve Tracy and I sat down with the City >Planner, Jim Antonen, the City lawyer, and several folks from the police, >planning and traffic departments to try to work out a solution to Old North >Parking problems. > > We did this because we, like others, were surprised to receive the >postcard poll asking if we wanted the standard parking district, the very >kind featured in the SacBee story on inner Sacramento parking problems. The >parking study request initiated by the ONDNA last year was always coupled >with the request we find a means of solving the residents' problems without >creating an exclusive zone like those found elsewhere in the City. Our >wishes to try something different somehow were lost to standard procedures. > > In the meeting, we offered several possible solutions, including that of >reserving and marking one spot per property (i.e., there would be a spot in >front of my house, the street painted and with a sign, saying the >equivalent of "This parking space for the resident of 602 C Street only." >Everyone would get such a spot and the balance of street-side parking room >would be open to public use. Although not strictly illegal by any law that >could be located, the City attorney also could not find law suggesting that >such an approach was _legal_, and was unwilling to pursue it. Instead, she >offered and everyone found workable the following alternative: > > We would create a restricted zone in ON, with spots equal to the number >of properties, within an otherwise unrestricted zone. So, for example, >there are twenty houses on the two sides of C Street between 6th and 7th. >Twenty spots, scattered along both sides of the street, would be painted >for a restricted zone; permits to be purchased for a fee like that of other >parking zones in Davis (approx. $10/yr). The balance of the spaces (another >20-30) would be unrestricted and could be used by residents who held a >permit, residents who did not hold any permit, or anyone else, including >downtown employees or students. Permit holders would not have rights to a >_particular_ space (that is the element that the City Attorney can not >accept, because it would privatize public domain), but would likely find it >easy to locate a zoned spot near their home and by convention, over time, >it would presumably be the one nearest their house. > > A key feature of this system: a property could obtain at most one zoned >permit. Any other automobiles they wished to park on the street could go in >unzoned spaces. > > This system would do several things: it would solve the melting >ice-cream/crying baby scenario in which ON homeowners can find no parking >within blocks of their houses mid-day when UC-Davis is in session; it >satisfies the city; it does not exclude downtown employees and others truly >in need of parking by emptying our streets of everyone but ourselves; it >does not even require residents purchase a parking permit to park >street-side in the neighborhood, including pakring adjacent to their home. >There are other problems it avoids that are associated with other schemes >(e.g., the number of signs required to effect enforcement). > > Perhaps as interesting, it forestalls or, more accurately, severely >limits, abuses like those cited in the SacBee article: homeowners who >obtain and then derive hefty profit by selling their visitors permits to >non-residents. > > It was quite a victory to get the diverse opinions and interests at the >meeting to agree on a solution, but this one found consensus and we will be >working on it with the City. Among the first steps is estimating the cost >of curb paint and signs. More information will follow when ONDNA meetings >crank up again later this month. The City will require a poll of the >neighborhood in which at least 67% respond and 50% are in favor, so we have >some work to do, an information campaign and neighborly lobbying. These are >hard numbers to achieve given low political participation by renters, >absentee owners, those on vacation, etc. But, we got the City to agree not >to poll until we had a chance to thoroughly explain the plan to the >residents of ON. Please stay involved and be ready to help with the details >are worked out. > > Z and Steve. . .if I've missed something important here, please add your >comments. > > Bruce > > > >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth From valerie at vanngroup.com Wed Jul 7 11:57:50 2004 From: valerie at vanngroup.com (Valerie Vann) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:57:50 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Walk About? Message-ID: <40EC47AE.C18ED2BF@vanngroup.com> Just a thought, but maybe the "Old" neighborhood Associations could organize an early evening or sometime joint "Walking Tour" of our neighborhoods for interested planning commission members, staff, City Council (especially new members), to give them a street level and residents' view of our neighborhoods and alleys, for a better understanding of our problems and concerns? I get the impression that people who just drive through occasionally don't really have a proper picture of what's going on here, such as the scale of buildings, alley issues such as parking of junk autos, disposal of trash, privacy issues on our small lots, dogs, parking, traffic, etc. Valerie Vann From zesmith at hotmail.com Wed Jul 7 11:57:54 2004 From: zesmith at hotmail.com (Z Smith) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:57:54 +0000 Subject: [OldNorth] Reschedule from Thurs. 7/8 to Mon. 7/12 at D/E St mini-park --Alley Trash Pickup Message-ID: Bob Weir, Director of Public Works, wrote me to re-schedule the meeting about alley trash pickup from tomorrow (Thursday 7/8 5pm) to Monday 7/12 at 6pm. He hopes to also have Paul Geisler of Davis Waste Removal there as well. Location: D/E St alley mini-park I'll provide 2 pizzas and Bruce is bringing some soft drinks and juice... Z >From: "Z Smith" >To: oldnorth at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us >Subject: [OldNorth] Hold the date-- Thursday 7/8 @5pm at D/E St mini-park >--Alley Trash Pickup >Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 02:12:57 +0000 > >Hold the date-- Thursday 7/8 @5pm at D/E St alley mini-park -- Alley Trash >Pickup Meeting > >Bob Weir (head of Public Works) is waiting for confirmation from someone >who won't be back until Tuesday, but has tentatively agreed to meeting >OldNorthers who are interested in the issue of the proposed discontinuation >of trash pickup from alleys. > >The idea is to meet for about an hour and toss some ideas around. > >I may be out of town Tuesday, so I've asked Bob to confirm or postpone via >Angela Willson or Bruce Winterhalder. So you should get an e-mail Tuesday >night from one of them. > >If the meeting goes forward, please tell your neighbors who may not be on >the e-mail list. >I'll be arranging for a few pizzas. Could someone else volunteer to bring >soft drinks? > >Z > > >_______________________________________________ >oldnorth mailing list >oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org >http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth From oldeastdavis at omsoft.com Wed Jul 7 17:09:34 2004 From: oldeastdavis at omsoft.com (Old East Davis) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:09:34 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Tonight! Wednesday Planning Commission Meeting Message-ID: Old East-- There is nothing listed in tonight's agenda about 532 J Street. Removed? There will be introduction of new members of the commission. We will need to know these new people as we go to meetings on upcoming projects as well as possible zoning changes. Also . . . there is a very important item on the agenda . . . 315 B Street which is the demolition of an existing house and replacement by four so-called "cottages" which defy 13 areas of the design guidelines. Testimony against such a flagrant disregard of the Design Guidelines will help *all* of Davis' old neighborhoods. This is item 8(e). The best way to testify, if you have cable, is to monitor the meeting on Davis Cable and go down as the item nears. Don't let the B Street location let you think it isn't of interest to Old East -- this one really is important! It is vital that this project is