HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2014 ac schmidtGoodwin, Heather
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:58 PM -CEIVED
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Where's the Chamber's input? J. N 2 2 2014 E
ATY CL'ER
Agenda Correspondence.
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street AGENDA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CORRESPONDENCE
tel 1805.781,7102
DeRe'Z Item#- Lh 1
,;zT
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: rschmidt @rain.org [mailto:rschmidt @rain.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:19 PM
To: Marx, Jan
Cc: rschmidt @rain.org; Mejia, Anthony
Subject: RE: Where's the Chamber's input?
Thanks Jan. Apparently it was posted in a separate grouping of correspondences, and a friend sent it to me, so I have it.
I do wonder, however, what any of what they want has to do with a land use or circulation element -- most of it has no
apparent relationship to those elements. So, will the council give this sort of policy dump any credence?
I am also totally insulted by their uppity attitude towards the rest of us mere mortals who happen to reside here. For
example, "The purpose of the LUCE update is not to preserve existing neighborhoods ..." The absolute arrogance of
that! Jan, I believe that the Chorro /Broad /Boysen business resulted from one of their secret document dumps at an
open house. Staff has verified that's where the idea came from. And the chamber has been making noise about people
bypassing downtown because Highway 1 leads to the freeway, not to downtown, and wanting to shunt tourists off
Highway 1 and through our neighborhood to downtown. The council seems unaware of this -- at least I hope that's
what's going on, and not that the council is in connivance with the scheme. The plan is clear: get the street
"realignments," then get rid of the left turn barrier on Highland so traffic can get directly from Highway 1 to Broad. (The
remove - the - barrier thing has already come up in a subsequent anonymous dump at another open house, dressed up as
being good for bicyclists, of course, so who could be against that ?) And the Boysen thing makes no sense unless there's a
larger agenda; I believe any bike crossing of Santa Rosa at that point will prove infeasible, but with the connection to
Chorro made, traffic can be shunted across Foothill and down Chorro to you know where. Hey, Jan, this IS the plan,
whether the council understands it or not. All the rationalizations are just that, to seduce the council into approving it,
and that seems to be working. And the chamber, always on the wrong side of any popular issue (need I mention
downtown street trees and wanting a parking garage over SL Creek in front of the mission? as well as state water ?) is at
it again -- ruining neighborhoods because they've drunk some planning theory cool aid that has already been proven
fallacious elsewhere. But, hey, in SLO we always jump on the latest bandwagon, just as its tail lights disappear around
the most distant curve in the highway.
As for sustainability, the LUCE update is a total farce. It's not even kindergarten level, which is what you get when the
city opens the process wide open for the chamber, and closes the door for neighborhoods and enviro people. Hey, we
could have even had an IPPC panel member had the city cared to do it right this time.
> Anthony, please direct Mr Schmidt to the chamber correspondence.
> Thanks Jan
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
> -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - --
> From: rschmidt @rain.org
> Date:01/16/2014 5:48 PM (GMT- 08:00)
> To: "Marx, Jan" ,dcarpen @slocity.org, "Ashbaugh, John" , "Smith, Kathy"
, "Christianson, Carlyn"
> Subject: Where's the Chamber's input?
> Dear Council Members,
> Reference was made at the council meeting this week to a submission
> the
Chamber made re what it wants in the LUCE update.
> Where is it? I don't see it among the posted agenda correspondence.
> I ask this because the Chamber has been less than straightforward
throughout the process, dumping anonymous "individual" suggestions into the box at the open houses, for example, and
then being reluctant to turn
> over for public knowledge a list of what they suggested.
> So, I don't know if the latest lack of public posting is more of the
same,
> or whether it's a staff error, but I do think the public has a right
> to
know what they want.
> Richard
> PS. And when was the last time a Chamber lobbyist, speaking before the
council, stated, "My name is blanketyblank, and I'm a registered municipal
> advocate representing the Chamber of Commerce ?" That is the law, you
know.
2