Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 PH2 SchmidtLomeli, Monique Subject: Attachments: FW: Agenda Item: 323 Grand Avenue Council 323 Grand slum.doc -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Richard Schmidt Date:06 /01/2015 12:29 PM (GMT- 08:00) To: "Marx Jan" "Christianson Carlyn" "Ashbaugh John" "Carpenter, Dan" "Rivoire Dan" "Mejia , , , , , , , , , , , Anthony" Subject: Agenda Item: 323 Grand Avenue Dear Council Members, Please see attached letter regarding this agenda item. Richard Schmidt JUN 01 2015 COUNCIL MEETING: U 12 L J ITEM NO.: RICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ( e -mail: June 1, 2015 Re: 323/353 Grand Ave City Council City of San Luis Obispo Dear Council Members: I urge you to reject this project in its entirety, as its design and density are abusive to the single - family neighborhood fabric, and to the neighborhood's continued viability as a place to live. It is said a basic function of government is to protect the few from the bullying of the many, but its reverse, protecting the many from the bullying of the few, is equally important — and that's what you must do in this instance. Otherwise, it will be clear this city casts its muscle with greedy speculators who thrive through such bullying and don't care one bit about the evil they inflict upon others. During the 8 years I served on our city's Planning Commission, a proposal like this would never have made it across the intake desk. Planners then understood their function to protect the broad public interest from the whims of the few. Unfortunately, in the interim since my service our city government has been stolen from residents by a bunch of arrogant carpetbagger bureaucrats who don't care about our public interest or the community's welfare, and consistently advocate on behalf of private greed instead of public good. Thus this awful project comes before you. What this project represents is the exploitation of a huge zoning loophole which a responsible staff would have moved quickly to plug. Speculators discovered that because of this loophole, they could create R -3 density student slums in the R -1 zone, which is supposed to be for actual single - family homes, not dense student dorm districts. This comes about because in multi - family zones density is based on bedroom count, whereas in R -1 it's based on houses regardless of bedroom count. Thus a project like the one before you has R -3 density (it exceeds R -2's maximum, therefore it's R -3 — don't be fooled by staff's efforts to say it doesn't reach R -3's "numbers," which are actually maximums, not minimums) on tiny substandard single - family -zoned lots created especially for this abusive purpose. THIS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG, AND YOU NEED TO STOP IT. What's the point of having R -1 zoning if R -1 density is the same as R -3 density? For the city to allow this sort of thing suggests rank hypocrisy in the city's SAYING it wants to stabilize neighborhoods all the while TAKING ACTIONS that destabilize them. In such a case, actions speak louder than words, and the old political mantra "It's the votes that count" provides substantive meaning all in the public can clearly understand. The dress rehearsal for this abusive development practice took place on the south side of Foothill between Tassajara and La Entrada, where a single house on a large lot was replaced with five five - bedroom houses on substandard lots, and with that example, and staff's doing nothing to plug the loophole, has spread all over town. It could happen next door to you! It has happened across the street from me, where in a one -off a speculator remodeled a family home into a 5- bedroom "investor- owned" lot- covering house with two illegal apartments the city does nothing to shut down. After 5 years of neighbors complaining to the city about the apartments, the official discussion has devolved into one about the legitimate size of the REFRIGERATORS in each illegal apartment! I kid you not. That's is the level of code enforcement that exists in this city. Once these sorts of places are built, the city stands by while they corrode whatever neighborhood fabric remains, whatever livability remains, until long -time residents are forced to move due to the slum conditions surrounding them, and the city trends towards an ever more transient occupancy, with fewer homeowners, fewer people concerned about civic issues. This is how a city's downward spiral to slumdom gets going. Happiest place not! Please stop this! Remember: Slums don't just happen. They are planned, permitted, and _built 4y planners and developers. The 19th century tenements (that day's "workforce housing ") that housed so much of America's 20th century's urban social pathology, were planned by "progressive" housing reformers, and when built they too were shiny and new. But their basic premise, crowding people into spaces inappropriate for that crowding, is the same one being practiced by our city's density - elixir- drinking planners, and the results here will be the same. A project like the one you're being asked to approve will drag down at least the surrounding block. Its replication citywide will drag down all but the most exclusive hillside enclaves. The transition of San Luis Obispo into Slum Luis Obispo will be effected by just such means, one decision at a time. Please reject this project. If the developer wants these substandard -sized lots, then the houses on them should be correspondingly and appropriately small. By small, we mean about 1000 to 1200 square feet max, two bedrooms, no "disguised future bedrooms" like the dens and lofts at the infamous Pine Creek Condominiums which everybody knew at the time they were approved would become bedrooms. A speculator can make good money from a project like I describe. There's a market for owner - occupied small homes. As rentals, small homes are also profitable. For example, the 820 square foot two - bedroom rental dump next to me now rents for $2200 a month. (When the rent was raised to that amount, the single - parent family with 3 small children who'd lived there for years were forced out, and students moved in.) If the speculators don't like such development conditions, they can abandon their illicit subdivision (the city didn't notice adjacent property owners, violating the law in the process — thus "illicit," and all too typical of how the Community Development Department does things) and redevelop the two original lots they already own. Please reject this project. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt PS. And once you've rejected it, please direct staff to determine what's required to close the zoning loophole that allows R -3 density in the R -1 zone, and direct them to close it.