From winterety at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 10 12:16:01 2004 From: winterety at sbcglobal.net (sheryl lynn gerety) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:16:01 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Parking And Safety Advisory Committee Message-ID: Dear Old North Neighbor: Thursday afternoon (October 7, 2004) the Safety Advisory Committee voted 4-1 to pass our Special Parking District proposal along to the City Council. There were minor concerns expressed about cost, and about setting a precedent that might be attractive to other neighborhoods. Commissioners asked PW to investigate less expensive ways of marking restricted spaces than annually applying green paint to the curbs. All but one Commissioner lauded our civic approach to the parking issue. We will let you know when this issue comes before Council, as it likely will require community turn-out in order to see it smoothly through this next hurdle. Thanks to all who showed up at the SAC meeting to lend a hand: John, Angela, Valerie, Steve and Mr. Roe (apologies for not catching your first name). Bruce Sheryl and Bruce -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 907 bytes Desc: not available URL: From winterety at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 10 12:35:10 2004 From: winterety at sbcglobal.net (sheryl lynn gerety) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:35:10 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Citizen Commissions Message-ID: <7FB7A4E0-1AF3-11D9-996F-00039370746A@sbcglobal.net> Old North Neighbors: Here is an item from Wednesday's (6 October, 2004; p. A4) Davis Enterprise: "The city of Davis is seeking volunteers to fill vacancies on four of its advisory groups, the Business and Economic Development, Historical Resources Management, Human Relations, and Tree commissions." The application deadline is October 22nd; applications may be picked up at the city clerk's office at City hall, 23 Russell Blvd. Please consider nominating yourself for one of these posts. Not only are they important to our city government, but it is vital that our ON neighborhood and, more broadly, the old historic neighborhoods in the core area be represented on these groups. Bruce Bruce Winterhalder -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 783 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dequickert at omsoft.com Sun Oct 10 12:54:13 2004 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:54:13 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Citizen Commissions In-Reply-To: <7FB7A4E0-1AF3-11D9-996F-00039370746A@sbcglobal.net> References: <7FB7A4E0-1AF3-11D9-996F-00039370746A@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <41699365.2030802@omsoft.com> Yes, except Historic Resources Commission members who live in the neighborhood have to recuse themselves when a local issue comes up. It would be most useful if we could find a reliably sympathetic friend who lives elsewhere in town! Dan sheryl lynn gerety wrote: > Old North Neighbors: > > > Here is an item from Wednesday's (6 October, 2004; p. A4) Davis Enterprise: > > "The city of Davis is seeking volunteers to fill vacancies on four of > its advisory groups, the Business and Economic Development, Historical > Resources Management, Human Relations, and Tree commissions." > > The application deadline is October 22nd; applications may be picked up > at the city clerk's office at City hall, 23 Russell Blvd. > > Please consider nominating yourself for one of these posts. Not only are > they important to our city government, but it is vital that our ON > neighborhood and, more broadly, the old historic neighborhoods in the > core area be represented on these groups. > > Bruce From jflofland at ucdavis.edu Sun Oct 10 12:57:36 2004 From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:57:36 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] Emlen-Wolcott Growth Projections Message-ID: Old Northers, Item 08 in this week's Council packet is by planners Emlen and Wolcott and titled "Growth Phasing & Fair Share Allocations." It contains tables of projected housing construction approvals by year over the next decade or so. Of immediate relevance to us, the major housing predicted within the 1917 City I noticed was 20 units on B Street. We know, however, that quite a lot of housing construction is going on and planned in the Original City. The question is: Is it in our interest to lobby to include projections for us or not? And, of course, it is exceedingly odd, to me, for planners to project 20 new units on B when there is a considerable struggle on that point going on and such a number may or may not actually be anywhere near the outcome. But, then, the projections assume that Covell Village will be approved and built! The year by year numbers are given in considerable detail. Such a planning exercise as this is a version of the self-fulfilling prophecy: A thing happens importantly as a consequence of a belief that it will happen rather than because factors in the nature of the situation making it happen. John Lofland From zesmith at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 15:01:22 2004 From: zesmith at hotmail.com (Z Smith) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:01:22 +0000 Subject: [OldNorth] new infill-growth ideas Message-ID: I opened the PDF of James Mullen's letter to the editor hoping to read a "new" infill growth idea. But it just seemed to just propose the same old idea: infill means degrading the quality of life, better to sprawl in a "planned community." Let's remember that Mace Ranch and Wildhorse both advertise themselves as "planned communities." What is most odd is that Mr. Mullen seems to think that the choice is infill mini-dorms with 12 students in 8-bedroom houses vs. Covell Village. I actually like a lot of the ideas in Covell Village, but one thing it doesn't provide much of is student housing. Covell may go forward, but it won't take the pressure off that is pushing towards these "mini-dorms." The mini-dorms are objected to because of 3 issues: 1) inappropriate scale to the neighborhoods -- fine, let's modify zoning so that massing of infill matches the surrounding structures (I've propsed a mechanism where FAR of infill would be limited to 125% of the adjacent properties up to the statutory limit of 0.4) 8 bedroom houses simply wouldn't be possible. 2) parking -- fine, let's limit street parking to one permit per address and onsite parking to no more than 2 spaces; if students live less than a mile to campus, they can get by on their bikes or share one car per 3 or 4 students. 3) noise / parties -- fine, let's have *stiff fines* for violations of the noise ordinances ($1000) and let's license rentals that lack onsite managers and revoke licenses for properties that violate noise or public order ordinances-- that would provide them the leverage with tenants, since it would trigger their eviction Z