From oldeastdavis at omsoft.com  Fri Jul 16 12:18:33 2004
From: oldeastdavis at omsoft.com (Old East Davis)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:18:33 -0700
Subject: [OldNorth] Message from DH Member: Infill & Council
Message-ID: <p06010206bd1dd82bf0ed@[192.168.1.101]>

Old East & Friends--

From: "Jim Becket" <beckets at cal.net>
To: "Old East Davis" <oldeastdavis at omsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:03:51 -0700

I'm not sure who will receive this reply. John Lofland? Others? So no 
salutation. I am not involved in either Old North or Old East, but I 
have been receiving the recent messages -- because of being a member 
of the DHS?

I will not be able to attend the strategy meeting tonight, although I 
would like to, even though not directly involved. Since I have not 
been involved in the discussions of the past and do not have the 
specific background on the "Olds" what I have to say may be 
irrelevant or inappropriate anyway. However, I believe it is very 
important that the discussion of strategy for either "Old" take into 
account that the two areas, along with "Old Center," are at the heart 
of the current, but longstanding, policy battle about growth. I 
notice a new term has been coined, "illfill" (which I really 
like), and if you are not aware that to the no growth folks there is 
no such thing as illfill, you should be. Without significant infill 
(and the denser and higher the better) in the heart of Davis, Covell 
Village is much more of a necessity. So by bucking any illfill, you 
are, in effect, helping promote Covell Village. Which is fine with 
me, but helps explain some of the actions of the Planning Commission, 
I believe.

In terms of individual Council members, Don Saylor expressed 
reservations about what was being touted as sites that had infill 
potential during the campaign. I wrote a letter at that 
time supporting Don's position on infill, which he appreciated. 
Although I do not know specifically, I believe he would be very 
supportive of the "Olds" perspective.

Again, sorry I cannot make the meeting. Although I suspect I might 
disagree on some points, I am in favor of your general thrust. Go get 
'em!  Jim Becket
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20040716/92234adf/attachment.html>

From valerie at vanngroup.com  Fri Jul 16 18:57:34 2004
From: valerie at vanngroup.com (Valerie Vann)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:57:34 -0700
Subject: [OldNorth] Message from DH Member: Infill & Council
References: <p06010206bd1dd82bf0ed@[192.168.1.101]>
Message-ID: <40F8878E.718175B2@vanngroup.com>


> 
> "Jim Becket" <beckets at cal.net wrote 
> Without significant infill (and the denser
> and higher the better) in the heart of Davis, Covell Village is much more of
> a necessity. So by bucking any illfill, you are, in effect, helping promote
> Covell Village. Which is fine with me, but helps explain some of the actions
> of the Planning Commission, I believe.
> 

I think what many of us oppose is not infill as such, but the fact that
these recent projects have involved either demolition of a traditional 
residence and replacement with very high density multi story project,
or packing a small lot with oversized dense projects in addition to
an existing residence.

Old North has long had "granny flats" in addition to a traditional
residence, and I don't have a problem with that, but I DO have a problem
with paving over back yards for parking or covering the lot set back to
set back with consequence of loss of open space, vegetation and the
neighbors' privacy. 

Valerie Vann
[Calling Old North "home" since 1957]