HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 PH2 RowleyLomeli, Monique
Subject: FW: PH2, Appeal of ARC Decision Regarding 323 -353 Grand Avenue
Attachments: 323 -353 Grand Appeal 6- 2- 2015.doc
From: Sandra Rowley [mailto:macsar99@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:02 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan
Cc: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: PH2, Appeal of ARC Decision Regarding 323 -353 Grand Avenue
Letter attached.
JUN p 1 2015
• a.
COUNCILM '(:J "ING: GP 02 IS
ITEM NO.:
Residents for (duality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
June 2, 2015
Subject: PH2, Appeal of Architectural Review Commission Decision Regarding 323 and 353 Grand Avenue
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods asks that you uphold the appeal and return this project to the ARC.
We further ask that you provide direction to reduce the overall square footage of each house to between
21 and 24% of the currently approved lot size so these houses will actually be compatible with the size,
mass, scale and overall character of the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods.
Are we to continue to see the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods slowly eaten up by these
oversized houses, built specifically to encourage additional student density? And when will it stop? As
long as developers are allowed to use the few oversized houses in the area as comparables, to the
exclusion of the remainder of the homes, this unfortunate trend will continue. You can stop that trend;
we ask that you do so now.
It is no longer just conjecture that projects such as McCollum Street, Leroy Court and this 323 -353 Grand
Avenue project create additional noise, parking, code violation and crime problems. It is a well -known
fact, substantiated by police and code enforcement data as well as by residents who live in the area.
What is also known, but never quantified, is the effects these mini -dorm projects have on the behavior of
student renters and on the happiness and peace of mind of permanent residents.
Mistakes have been made, and we need to call them mistakes, not precedents. In recent years we have
deviated from the true meaning of our minimums, maximums and guidelines. We have forgotten the
importance of privacy and don't look carefully enough at the impacts of overlook on neighborhood quality
of life. We have forgotten to gauge the effects of a project on the solar access of neighboring properties.
And we have lost sight of the meaning of compatibility.
For over two years there have been repeated conversations concerning establishing an overlay or other
mechanism to create neighborhood stabilization programs for Alta Vista and Monterey Heights, possibly
other established neighborhoods, too. Yet oversized remodels and now another oversized housing
project continue to be approved. This needs to stop before it is too late for any type of neighborhood
stabilization program to be effective.
Neighborhood Wellness was a Major City Goal in budget years 2011 -2013 and 2013 -2015, and for budget
years 2015 -2017 it is an Other Important Objective. In 2013, President Jeffrey Armstrong wrote,
"With regard to Neighborhood Wellness, improvements are vital not only as a matter of
respecting our neighbors, but they are also important to our students'success...." "The council
deserves credit for its leadership in approving tougher fines and encouraging stricter code
compliance, efforts Cal Poly publically supported at a September 2009 city workshop."
He went on to say,
" Working together to address neighborhood wellness in a holistic way, (emphasis added) we
can do even more to continue to improve the quality of life for all residents, including the
thousands of residents who are students at Cal Poly and Cuesta."
Cal Poly is doing their part by planning on- campus housing for 65% of their projected 25,000 students in
their updated Master Plan. We, like Cal Poly, should be planning for the future as well so we are not left
with these white elephants when neighborhood mini -dorms are no longer sought after for use as student
housing. We need to preserve our single - family housing now so it will be there for future occupancy by
professional and workforce singles, couples and families.
The appellants have supplied a multitude of data that supports their position that this project is not
compatible with the neighborhood and should not be allowed as currently proposed. Neighbors have
expressed their opposition to the project and have provided information about the negative impacts
caused by such projects. Now they need you to support them.
They need you to uphold the appeal and to return this project to the ARC with direction to require
further, substantial reduction in the square footage of the houses to between 21 and 24% of the lot size
so that they are truly compatible with the neighborhood in which they are to be built.
Thank you for your time and for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
2