HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-2015 Item 18 - Pinard7
DCOUNCIL MEETING* I`NITEM NO.: iI
AUG 1 8 '7i'1r, }
From: Peg Pinard rmailto;r)inardmat@amaiLcom]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 2:49 PM �.ti _
To: Allan Cooper; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn, a 4-n;
Johnson, Derek; Lichtig, Katie; Davidson, Doug
Cc: Sandy Rowley; Linda White; Dave Congalton; Camas Frank; Jeanette Trompeter; Mila Vujovich-
La Ba rre
Subject: Re: Regarding Staff's Draft Public Engagement Manual (PEM)
Dear Council Members,
When the city received the feedback from CityGate that communication was the planning
department's biggest area for improvement, I thought you might take that to heart and really do
something to improve this huge gaping hole in city governance and in communication with city
residents. What is being presented to you as a "Public Engagement" improvement is anything
but... For one, I try to keep up with what is going on just because of my background and
commitment to neighborhood preservation. And yet, Allan's email is the first I'm hearing about
this meeting. That's gotta tell you something. I've been here, I talk with my neighbors... and yet
the Old Town Neighborhood, one of the city's most impacted neighborhoods, hasn't been
involved.
It's not ok to pretend you are `improving' things ... to say that "here are the staff reports"...if
nothing really changes. No one ever criticized you for not having enough staff reports! This is
an example of `show' over `substance'. Nothing has substantially changed.
You each ran for office saying that you wanted to make things better in one way or another... and
communication with the city residents you are supposed to serving should be at the top of the
list. Solving problems is hard enough, there are always lots of points of view, but if you leave
out the residents who have the most invested in this community, who live here, who care ... then
you are not only not doing your job but you are reaffirming what I hear from way too many
people ... that this council doesn't care. And, when that happens... people stop caring too ... and
they move elsewhere.
In the long run, our city will only be as safe as the residents in it are involved and care. Your
city council actions have been systematically shutting people out. Neighborhood after
neighborhood have come before you trying to protect what has been valuable to them ... and time
after time, they've been turned away. And, in the case of Old Town, you even refused to meet
with us when we asked. Is this to be another instance of `staff -wrote -something -up -that makes -
it -appear -that -city hall cares".- but you really don't?
Allan's example of people being affected by parking generated from more than 50 feet away is a
clear example of an attempt to limit discussion and exclude residents. We, in Old Town, are
impacted by downtown employee parking, events at Mission Plaza, Thursday Night Farmer's
Market, and every other downtown activity, etc. That's more than 50 feet away! It certainly
isn't "adjacent (and across the street) owners and occupants". In fact,
according to these proposed guidelines, residents on the same block
would have no knowledge or ability for input for the parking requirements for 10
occupants in a three bedroom house... because it'S 2 doors away. Add to
that: "with 5 days notification"? You can't be serious. You couldn't have said
it better if your intent was to shut residents out.
Why don't you do this right and have neighborhood meetings like you should
have had in the first place. Not "come-if-you're-interested-non-descript-drop-
in centers" that engage no one but those who are poised to make money. But
have real discussions with residents, in their neighborhoods, about what
problems they are facing and how you and they can work together to solve
them. Or, are you going to give the same excuse you did for why you didn't
hold those meetings as part of the LUCE?... that the city couldn't afford the
$100 it might cost to rent the school auditorium for an evening? The old
maxim still holds: "Follow the money"...face it, you have plenty of money
to spend on what you want... yet you say you don't have it when it's
something you don't want to do.
Even now, you can stop this charade and you still have an opportunity to do it
right.
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
Former Mayor and Chairperson of the SLO County Board of Supervisors
On Aug 18, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Allan Cooper <acoopera,calpoly.edu> wrote:
Regarding Staff's Draft Public Engagement Manual (PEM)
Honorable Mayor and Council Members -
Thanks to Sandra Rowley and Residents For Quality Neighborhoods (RQN),
Save Our Downtown was notified today (the same day as your meeting) that
RQN is taking exception to the existing "Notification Standards for
Development Projects" which are found in Exhibit A on page 352. Although
Save Our Downtown has had input opportunities via email on the proposed
"Public Engagement and Noticing Manual", we unlike RQN, did not benefit
from a face-to-face meeting regarding these changes. We would like to add
our concerns to those of RQN regarding Use Permit (USE) notifications.
It has been our experience after reviewing several projects involving "offsite
parking" impacts that the current and proposed notification process is flawed.
Two of these projects were appealed to the City Council by concerned
neighbors, namely, the Mission School Annex located at 772 Palm Street and
Pacific Courtyards located between Osos and Chorro Streets. Both the
Mission Orchard Neighborhood Association and the Old Town Neighborhood
Association would have benefitted had property owners within 300 feet of the
project been notified and had their response time been greater than 5 days.
Therefore, Save Our Downtown is proposing the following!
Instead of proposing a change that off-site parking requests be copied via
post card to "adjacent (and across the street) owners and occupants"
with 5 days notification before the off-site parking impact hearing, Save Our
Downtown would like to extend post card notification to "owners and
occupants" within (at least) 300 feet of the proposed project. This is
because the impact zone of overflow on -street parking from a single project
always extends beyond the adjacent properties. Neighborhoods throughout
San Luis Obispo have consistently registered their opposition to proposed
projects that pay in lieu fees because these projects are "under parked" and
the neighborhoods (surely those parts of the neighborhood within 300 feet of
the project) suffer as a result.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo