HomeMy WebLinkAboutARC 04-06-2015 Correspondence - SmallTo: Building and Planning Dept.
ARC
Planning Commission
SLO City Council
Dear Staff and Members of Council and Commissions:
As I contemplate my letter in support of residents in Monterey Heights who are desperately
trying to hold on to some aspect of "neighborhood ", "normal, "residential ". "traditional ",
"conforming" "compatible ", I wonder if representation of residents isn't missing.
Why is it missing? Who is it among you who does not value residents?
We need your help to give us any hope that the damage caused by lack of dorms on the
Cal Poly campus (and the subsequent horde of investors filling houses to the brim with
college -aged students) can, one day, be reversed.
Monterey Heights and Alta Vista, as well as other neighborhoods, pray for the day their area
will see couples and families, both workforce and professional, return to available housing stock.
As you know, many have already given up hope and moved. I ask you, the combined body of
representatives of this once -sweet town, could you possibly give the remaining residents in
impacted areas a thread of hope?
1 of 2
From inception, as you review plan submittals, please think of us as real people who live in
real houses in real neighborhoods in the city you are elected, hired and appointed to represent.
Plans for structures in San Luis Obispo's existing neighborhoods need not be an exercise in the
latest and greatest planning idea from some school or school of thought: The concept of "infill"
may work in some areas of some cities. Using it in beleaguered neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo
that are already "filled in" adds to the destabilization of neighborhoods.
There are guidelines. If a plan does not meet the guidelines, please do not consider exceptions
just because you can. It does not seem that long ago that 6,000 sq. ft. lots were allowed.
Now, at 323/353 Grand Ave., you seek to grant an exception for even smaller lots?
With much larger structures? AND a larger percentage of living space to land ratio?
WHY?
Are we left to think that reason does not reign and there is nothing we can do about it? Perhaps you
can tell developers, who think they are "entitled" to an exception, that just because it was done previously,
you have no intention of setting a precedent. I do not think we are obligated to figure out how they can
make bigger profits.
Consider exceptions once granted as:
A. In the Past
B. Applied Enough Times
C. Mistakes
D. Not the New Standard
E. All the Above
It occurs to me that the damage done to neighborhoods by Cal Poly is now added to by The City.
Please let us know what hope there is for residents fighting for their neighborhoods. It seems so unfair
what Cal Poly has caused. Can our own city representatives be depended on to defend us?
If no one has the time to develop an overlay for the subject area, it is time to determine - -at very least - -that no
exceptions will be granted until such is in place.
2 of 2
I apologize for my less than formal letter. I simply have to write the truth: I am often sickened about
what is happening and I am always sad. In 2001 while canvassing neighborhoods, I met several
residents who felt forced to move as they could not stand living on their streets, filled with students
and party noise, any longer. One woman on Dartmouth, living alone in her home of 45 yrs., particularly stands
out in my mind. She loved `her home and did not want to leave it; she was miserable.
In Monterey Heights, you have this desperate situation compounded by the City allowing investors
to prey on it.
This is also a good time to define "compatible ". What has been labeled this term would be laughable if
it weren't so harmful. No one attempts to call vehicles "compatible" because both brands have
tires, windows and steering wheels. Please stop doing it with structures when it can actually be quantified.
What number /percentage of homes in a given area are two - story? Say 4 in a sample of 20. The lots in question
could have two one -story homes facing Grand (thus visually compatible with the neighborhood) with
one two -story in the back.
Even allowing three structures on two lots stretches compatibility (though not as horrifically as what is
being considered). Size? Stick to COMPATIBLE living /lot ratio! Why would you consider structures large
enough to have 16 bedrooms when likely 6 were there previously and compatible with the neighborhood.
You would be quick to tell me there are no density limits in R -1. There did not have to be
when this was a normal town. Do you really want 20 + students piling onto this property (yes, garages too)
Now ask yourselves if you are personally culpable if you agree adding to the overcrowding party atmosphere.
Hanging out every day with lots of young people in these neighborhoods is the incubator for the next party to
rival the last.
Were these huge structures presented as "workforce" housing?
Seriously?
Who thinks YOU are dumb? Is it the investor /developer or someone else who knows the buzz words?
Disheartening!-- as well as completely lacking veracity.
What is happening is so wrong! Please do not add to it.
Camille Small
San Luis Obispo