HomeMy WebLinkAboutARC 01-21-15 Meeting Correspondence - SchmidtRICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect
January 21, 2015
Re: 323/353 Grand Ave
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear ARC Commissioners:
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544 -4247
e -mail: slobuild@yahoo.com
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JAN 21 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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 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 the Planning Commission, a proposal like this would
never have made it across the intake desk. Planners then understood their function to
protect the many from the whims of the few.
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 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 actually
are 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 DO YOUR PART TO STOP IT.
The dress rehearsal for this abusive 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
created a 5- bedroom "investor- owned" house with two illegal apartments the city does
nothing to shut down. After 5 years of neighbors complaining 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. Once these 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
around 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 and permitted, by planners. The
19th century tenements (that day's "workforce housing ") that housed so much of the 20th
century's urban social pathology, were planned by 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 such means, one
decision at a time.
Recommendation: Reject this project. If the developer wants these substandard -sized
lots, then the houses on them should be appropriately small. By small, we mean about
1200 to 1400 square feet, 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 to students 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.) 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 redevelop the two original lots they
own.
Please reject this project.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
C r
i
L
N
C
?
Eo
`;
rn
o
''� Z'
E as a
°
- -1
- . .E .E
E
o
C> 4)
�,
VAC
au
C E
ca o
U E
E
U E
�, E w
o
_
dU
QU
U�
Qy��y Yom -