Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 PH2 WhitneyLomeli, Monique Subject: FW: Appeal from ARC decision, June 2, PH 2 Attachments: Appeal of ARC decision.docx From: Sharon Whitney Frmailto:whitney.sharon gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:40 PM To: Mejia, Anthony; Ashbaugh, John; Marx, Jan; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan Cc: Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Derek Subject: Appeal from ARC decision, June 2, PH 2 Please see my correspondence, attached. We are all teachers and students for each other. MAY 2 7 0015 F t -r�i CLERK COUNCIL MEETING: OWN ITEM NO.: _ 'H� Appeal of ARC decision, regarding 323/353 Grand Ave, San Luis Obispo The City should not permit the project as now designed. The City Council should reject the resolution that would permit it. Speaking objectively, the project has an average living area ratio far exceeding the average living area ratio of most of the other homes in the neighborhood. Most of the other homes in the neighborhood were designed to be affordable for small workforce families. Of course, neither the Planning Commission nor the ARC is unaware of these facts. Yet they want to permit the project. So, in order to do so they narrowed their community guidelines perspective to the two Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) on the adjacent streets of McCollum and Leroy Court and said the project was compatible. But, there is a problem with this narrowed perspective. The problem is that the PUDs themselves are notable outliers in comparison with the greater neighborhood. I have it on good authority that the City permitted the PUDs on the optimistic premise that the PUDs could be sold as affordable homes for small workforce families. Pessimistic neighborhood activists objected then based on their fears that the greater neighborhood would be further destabilized, predicting that PUD occupancy would be by transient college -aged individuals and asserting the collective impact would be increased nuisance carelessness, wild and wooly cutting loose fueled by binge alcoholic drinking. The evidence of police statistics proves the pessimistic perspective of the neighborhood activists was right. When the ARC was reminded of this negative historical and cultural experience, the chair's response was essentially a nose - thumbing "Get used to it." I take this to mean long -term neighborhood residents are once again supposed to accept the theoretical ideals of developers and planners as knowing best what is right for the City's greater community. Well, I don't. What I accept is that this City Council really envisions an alternative kind of vibrancy for its real estate market, one with more affordable homes modest in size and compatible for attracting, again, the civic - minded long -term worker resident and families. What I adhere to is neighborhood wellness as right for the City's greater collective good. Therefore, I urge each of you to take a different stand than what the resolution asks you to take. I urge each of you to adhere to your greater vision for affordable workforce housing in this neighborhood and throughout the community. You should each see that this super -sized project needs to be down -sized to be compatible with greater neighborhood and the greater community's collective good. I urge you to see that our appeal is right.