HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-2015 Item 6 KalenianFrom: Bill Kalenian fmailto:BKalen@Strasbaugh.com]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 8:47 PM
To: E-mail Council Website
REECE.I�il�...�_-
E
EP 0 9 2015
CITY CLI�I?j(_J
Subject: Comments on SLO City Council Meeting, Tuesday, Sept.
To the SLO City Council:
COUNCIL MEETING: q "/ /S
ITEM NO.:
I attended the SLO City Council meeting on Tuesday, September 1St, in support of my neighbor,
Mr. Joe Gambucci. My wife Julie, our two children, and I live at 568 Princeton Place- two doors
away from Mr. Gambucci and his family.
Julie and I were disappointed in the Council's decision to not support Mr. Gambucci's appeal to
allow his boat to remain on a concrete pad where it has been parked for 20+ years. It has never
bothered us, and I'm not aware of any neighbors that were bothered by it. We are a tightknit
neighborhood, and bastion of families surrounded by transient student residents. I believe we are
a perfect example of what the Council would like to see in its neighborhoods- a blend of families
and students, permanent and transient residents that care about their homes and work to alleviate
problems.
On Tuesday evening Mr. Gambucci very clearly outlined to you a variety of reasons that his
family should legally be allowed to park a vehicle on that pad. I'm not writing you to rehash
these, although his reasoning was sound, and I believe the Council made a mistake in denying his
appeal (exceptions to Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Rivoire). What I do want to discuss is the parking
ordinance itself.
Although I wasn't a part of the creation of this parking ordinance 17.17.055, my understanding
and per Section 1 of the ordinance, "The purpose of these regulations is to preserve the
residential character of streetscapes in the city's neighborhoods." More generally, it is my
understanding that it was created to maintain residential character by preventing residents -
typically student renters- from parking too many vehicles in driveways and other non -permitted
parking areas. Clearly we are trying to avoid students from parking cars on lawns and in side
yards. But parking problems such as these are not really THE problem. They are a symptom of
the problem. The problem: Too many non -related renters- typically students- packed into our
small neighborhood residences. The students all have cars, as well as friends and girl/boyfriends
that have cars. The result is more cars than our older, small neighborhoods can reasonably
handle.
I challenge the Council to focus on the problem rather than symptoms of the problem.
The City and Council should be working towards guidelines and policies to:
➢ Update maximum occupancy rules to prevent too many non -related individuals from residing in
the same house (the current rules are simply not realistic for many SLO neighborhoods with
older, smaller residences)
o Develop sensible methods of verification of number of renters in a residence
o Adopt penalties for landlords and renters that are out of compliance
➢ Develop means to encourage — possibly even through litigation, if required - Cal Poly to house a
reasonable number of its own students on campus
Resolving these problems would largely resolve the parking issues that the City is chasing after,
not to mention other high profile problems such as St. Fratty Day -like events, excessive noise,
etc.
A question: How does parking 3 vehicles in a paved driveway of a house with a 2 -car garage
negatively affect the character of a neighborhood? Frankly, I'm baffled by this. Consider this:
After a long day at work, there's nothing more annoying to me than coming home and finding
nowhere to park on Princeton Place. Cars upon cars parked on our little street, mainly from
students and their friends residing in rentals in our neighborhood. Not only is it annoying, but all
the cars on the street actually DO negatively affect the character of our neighborhood (unlike
cars parked in paved driveways). Having more off-street parking would help alleviate this. The
City's rules should be encouraging this, yet the City has adopted a set of laws that deter it and
relegates residents and their visitors to find parking on the street. Did you know that the garages
in our 1950's built houses are too short to reasonably fit even many compact cars? There is only
1 resident on Princeton that actually does park their vehicle in their garage, and that's because
they remodeled it to be longer. That leaves only 2 driveways spots and 2 off-street parking spots
for most households. For a family of 4- with a 16 year old son that will soon be driving- that can
be difficult.
Walking around town and within our own neighborhood, I regularly see examples of illegal
parking according to 17.17.055. I often see a car parked along the side of the driveway in the
dirt just a few houses down from us at 544 Princeton. I also find mattresses in front yards, ill -
kept houses with absentee landlords, trash piled high in front and side yards, and abandoned
sofas sitting in street medians. And yet the City chose to take -on the guy with the nicest house
on the block. With all due respect, it just doesn't make sense to me. Rules are rules, and that's
why the rules need to be changed. But frankly, since Tuesday's council meeting I keep
wondering, "Why do I want to stay here in SLOT" The students make it untenable, as does the
City. Permanent "head of household" residents are getting squeezed out from both ends. Slowly
but surely SLO will become a town with only college students residing in rentals. This isn't sour
grapes. Check the numbers- it's already happening.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bill Kalenian