Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Item 14, WhiteTo: Subject: Maier, John Paul RE: 48 Buena Vista COUNCIL MEETING:_ ITEM NO.: ___ - - -- From: Linda White [ Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:31 PM To: Marx, Jan; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Codron, Michael; E -mail Council Website Subject: 48 Buena Vista Re: 48 Buena Vista Mayor Marx and Council Members, I am writing to support the Planning Commission denial of the project at 48 Buena Vista. RECEIVED JAN 15 2016 SLO CITY CLERK Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Derek; *My first comment is that I was notified this morning that the plans in the online packet are not the correct plans. If the City Council is to rule on the denial made by the Planning Commission, it seems that you should be using the same plans that the Planning Commission saw and denied. The City and developer should not be able to change their plans when coming before you. • I do not deny the owner of this lot, his right to build. However, he knew when he bought this lot that there were many challenges including but not limited to: steep slope, small buildable area, limited parking, narrow Buena Vista fire zone. o It is not the responsibility of City staff or City Council to ignore the constraints of this lot and grant him exceptions to City guidelines in order for him to build the home that he desires. ■ Cost to or difficulty for the developer should not enter into decisions of staff to grant relief from sidewalks, re- siting of ingress and egress. r This is simply the wrong design and sized development for this steep and challenging lot. I am attaching all of my previous letters of concern to be added to your packet as my many arguments against this project have not changed over the course of the past five months. Please uphold the Planning Commission denial of this project to help us preserve the safety of our established neighborhood. Linda White, co- chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors Linda White 2077 Slack Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 543 -8801 Phone & FAX lindaleewhite 15Qcharter.net August 20, 2015 Re: 2390 Loomis St. USE - 1520 -2015 I am the owner of the property at 2299 Santa Ynez St., directly across the street from 2390 Loomis St. I am opposed to the height exemption proposed. If this exception is made, it will adversely affect the views from my existing and established property at 2299 Santa Ynez that was built using the City height standards without an exemption. Table 5.5 of the zoning regulation calls for a maximum height of 25 ft. without the administrative use permit. The purpose of this regulation according to numerous City Guidelines and Zoning Regulations is to assure that the new development within and existing neighborhood is compatible in size, scale, mass to the existing structures and preserves the existing neighborhood character. In addition, this lot not only R -1 but R -1 (S) Special Consideration. If the lot is too steep, small or unstable to sustain a home that adheres to City zoning and Guidelines, then perhaps this is not a good building site. It is not the responsibility of the City to give exceptions in order to make any and all lots buildable. I am arriving home from vacation and luckily had been e- mailed this legal notice by two other concerned SLO residents. With more time and better access to City resources, I would have prepared a better opposition to this exemption. This letter however, will act as my opposition for future challenges if this exemption is approved. Sincerely, Linda White Owner of 2299 Santa Ynez Monterey Heights Neighbors, co- chairman Please see that the appropriate people receive this letter. Thank you, LLW Linda White 2077 Slack Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 543 -8801 Phone & FAX lindalcewhite 15 @charter.net September 12, 2015 Re: USE - 1520 -2015 2390 Loomis & 48 Buena Vista September 23, 2015 hearing date Planning Commission I am writing to oppose the review of a new single- family residence with an attached Secondary Dwelling Unit on a non - conforming lot in the S- overlay zone that includes a height exception and a setback exception. My objections are as follow: Objections: • The developer knew what he was buying when he purchased this non - conforming, steep, special consideration lot. • The developer knows the zoning regulations and Community Guidelines. • If this lot is developed, it should be developed within the City zoning and guidelines. • It is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to make the desires of the developer a reality by making exceptions to our zoning and guidelines. • No mitigations have been called for to address the possible noise pollution from outdoor activities on the decks and roof which are the outdoor spaces provided by the developer and approved by city staff.. ■ Adequate study has not been done to address the safety of vehicles backing out onto the curve of Buena Vista or those driving up Buena Vista, including when multiple cars parked in tandem, back out to allow garage cars to leave. • Due to the secondary dwelling and necessity for parking for that tenant, the visual dominance of the automobile will not be reduced as is called for in the Guideline Goal, 5.1 • Adequate study has not been done to address the safety of pedestrians walking on the street of Buena Vista since sidewalks have been deemed too expensive for the developer due to the slope of the lot. This project ignores Guideline Goal 5.1 to "promote pedestrian activity" . • 5.2 E of Guidelines -Site planning, states that site planning (for residential subdivisions and multi - family projects) should emphasize the needs of pedestrians and cyclists rather than cars. Why should this be of lesser concern in established neighborhoods? As soon as I have access to the staff report that will be submitted to you, I may have further concerns. This letter has been based on the staff report for the Administrative Permit hearing. Even though it is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to solve the problems of the developer perhaps: a. the secondary unit should be eliminated or b. the site of the home changed to conform to zoning and/or guidelines. c. the design changed to conform to zoning and guidelines. Again, added cost to the developer or ease of construction should not be a consideration for the Planning Commission. To quote , " Guidelines are developed to preserve established neighborhood character, provide privacy, preserve open space, and make sure that the new building is compatible in size, scale and mass." We, the Monterey Heights Neighbors take the Zoning Regulations and Community Guidelines seriously. We hope that you will do the same. Sincerely, Linda White, co- chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors Linda White 2077 Slack Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 lindaleewhite 15acharter.net 2015 09 21 Planning Commission USE 1520 -2015 I will be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 23 due to the fact that I am the 24/7 Caregiver for a family member. I have been unable to secure coverage for Wednesday evening. However, I want my voice and objections heard. Hopefully, you have received and read my September 12, letter. These are additional objections: • PC2 -2 "On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right -of -way bordering the site. " This wide undeveloped right of way was secured to provide this lot and the adjacent lot with ingress and egress from Santa Ynez and Loomis. This is a much safer ingress and egress than Dead Man's Curve on Buena Vista. •PC2 -3 2.2 Includes an 1,802 sq. ft. home + attached 438 sq. ft. Secondary Dwelling I know of no other home in the neighborhood that has a legal or illegal secondary dwelling. This Secondary Unit is NOT compatible with this neighborhood. Nor is it prudent given the already existing parking problems in this neighborhood or dangerous ingress and egress on Buena Vista. Furthermore, the shortened drive just exacerbates all of these conditions. r PC24 "...may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor nature... "(emphasis added). This is not a minor exception given the slope of the lot, the increased parking requirement for the secondary unit, the shortened drive, difficult ingress and egress from Buena Vista. • PC2 -4 Height exception: "In order to comply with the City's Grading Ordinance, the design of the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the structure close to where the street access is available and by maintaining a smaller building footprint. " If the home was designed and sited closer to the intended ingress and egress on Loomis /Santa Ynez, less grading would be necessary. The desire of the developer to site the home on the higher portion of the sloped lot where exceptions are necessary, should not force the planning commission into granting the exceptions. • PC2 -5 "The project is also consistent with Purpose "4" (Section 17.21. 010) for secondary dwelling units because the project expands housing opportunities for low - income and moderate - income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing neighborhoods. " While I agree with the purpose of secondary dwellings, I do not agree that secondary dwellings are appropriate on all lots. If this was a flat lot, a secondary unit might be appropriate. However, it is not appropriate on an R -1 -S especially if it needs exceptions to fulfill the desire of the developer. • PC2 -6 3.2 Consistency with the General Plan "...project continues the rhythm of development that reflect the existing development in the area including front yard setbacks, street orientation,... " If this is consistent with front yard setbacks, why is an exception being asked for? Further, there are no known secondary dwellings in this steep portion of the neighborhood so this does not continue the rhythm of development. Secondary dwellings would be appropriate on the flatter lots. "The project is also consistent with the Housing Element Program 6.105 because it increases residential density at an appropriate location and the incorporation of Assembly Bill 1866 (2003) which encourages creation of Secondary Dwelling Units. " I don't believe that the Housing Element or Assembly Bill require secondary dwellings. They may encourage on appropriate lots but this is not an appropriate lot. This lot already has special considerations due to its slope. PC2 -6 Conclusion "The setback reduction is warranted due to the abnormal lot lines that are not parallel, the steep slope of the site... " As I have said before, it is not the responsibility of the City Staff nor the Planning Commission to give exceptions for difficult building lots. The developer knew what he was buying when he bought the lot. The developer knows the City Guidelines. It is the developer's responsibility to design and site a project that conforms to the Guidelines within the limitations of the lot. At the Administrative Hearing during the discussions, two contradictory statements were made by the staff and I hope that they won't be made at this meeting. In defending the developer's site preference, much was made of the fact that this lot is not within the scenic highway zone and therefore seeing it from 101 was not a concern. When it was suggested by a member of the audience, that the building site be placed on the flatter portion of the lot, staff then stated that it would not be as pleasant from scenic 101. This lot should either be in or out. The scenic highway can't be used to support one building site and then be used to discourage another site on the same lot. Please defend the Guidelines. Please see that this project conform to size, scale and most importantly compatibility with the existing established neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Linda White, co- chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors Monterey Heights Neighbors September 30, 2015 Planning Commission, Derek Johnson, Michael Codron, Kyle Bell, Doug Davidson, Kim Murry, Hemalata Dandekar, , Michael Draze , John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, William Riggs, Ronald Malak I attended the September 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and would like to express my concerns regarding the 2nd agenda item Use - 1520 -2015. These are not in order of importance but rather as they come to mind. I have expressed a number of these concerns previously, not only for this item but on numerous other issues and to various government agencies over the past three years. General Concerns: • poor noticing gives the perception of collusion between developer, city staff, PC, ARC, CC, etc. I realize that you give the minimum legal noticing but this is NOT sufficient. Items such as these exceptions are not "minor" as stated by Council Member Christensen and City Planner, Kyle Bell. These are important matters to the permanent residents in the neighborhood at a distance greater than 300 ft. • providing the staff report on the website and sending e-mail notices to those who requested notice on the Friday before the Wednesday meeting is not sufficient for neighborhood involvement. Even though 5 days is Legal, it does not convey openness or transparency on the part of City staff and City government, especially when two of the five days are weekend days when City staff is not available to permanent residents for questions. • staff prepares the slick Power Point presentation for the developer • staff presents and lobbies for the developer • staff has as much time as necessary to explain the developer's wishes • residents have 3 minutes to express in lay terms and without benefit of staff guidance their concerns • where is the city- taxpayer -paid- advocate for the permanent residents • staff works with the developer to help the developer make his development wishes come true • staff, that understands the Guidelines, ordinances, etc. assists the developer in justifying exemptions to allow the developer to build his wish • where is the staff person, well - versed in City- speak, to assist the lay- permanent - resident- neighbor in formulating their opposition • who represents and speaks for the permanent residents who are not well- versed on development or government speak • cost to developer should not enter into the deliberation • the developers know what they are buying and should not look to the PC to make exceptions so their purchases are economical • why are the wishes of "stakeholders" who don't necessarily live (or vote) in SLO given preference over permanent residents • how do we find the correspondence for an issue in front of the PC to confirm that our letters have been received. The City Council has a Correspondence tab on the website where is your correspondence tab Specific to Use -1520 -2015 • the developer knew when he bought this steep R -1 -S lot that he had building challenges • the developer knows the SLO building guidelines • the city staff assist the developer in recommending to the Administrator and PC, exceptions that they feel should be allowed so that the developer can build his wish • if the secondary unit is, by law, a "Right" as stated by one of the commissioners, I would like to see that law, in its entirety. This is a request to the Planning Commission that you e -mail this entire law to me • if the secondary unit is a right, why isn't the property and entire neighborhood up -zoned to R -2 • slope of Loomis did not stop others from developing sloped driveways (See photos attached) • commissioners took staffs picture and statement that Loomis access was too steep and too expensive at face value rather than questioning • PC2 -2 "On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide undeveloped right -of -way bordering the site. " This wide undeveloped right of way was secured to provide this lot and the adjacent lot with ingress and egress from Santa Ynez and Loomis. This is a much safer ingress and egress than Dead Man's Curve on Buena Vista. (See photos attached) • why did staff fail to mention this easement from Loomis in its oral presentation • why did commissioners not ask about this easement • what authority does the commissioner have (I don't remember which) who stated that staff should be directed to abandon Loomis access especially since there is an easement parallel to Loomis • what about the ignored easement giving access from Santa Ynez • why was the developer of 2330 Santa Ynez forced to grade and spread decomposed granite onto this right of way to make it accessible to the other lots, if it is ignored by staff and the PC •why was the developer of 2330 Santa Ynez forced to put sidewalks along his Loomis frontage adjacent to the easement when there are no sidewalks to connect to • why has this developer been given a free pass regarding sidewalks on Buena Vista because they do not connect to other undeveloped lots and would be costly to build • why was the developer of the single family mini dorm at the corner of Henderson and McCollum given a pass on his sidewalks when there would have been only two lots without sidewalks between his lot and existing sidewalks • who makes these arbitrary decisions regarding sidewalks • if a secondary unit is truly a "Right" then this unit should conform to guidelines without exceptions, without adding to present parking problems, without adversely affecting the health and safety of pedestrians, bicyclist, and autos using Buena Vista, without adversely increasing neighborhood density • does anyone remember when this entire neighborhood was evacuated when the fire hopped the grade (1985 or 86 ? ? ?) • how can the shortened drive /parking be considered safe when a drive through the neighborhood shows that because of increased density, cars park with their rear ends hanging over the curb, into the street 2260 Loomis with steep drive accessing their lot from Loomis St. AM Santa Ynez easement required of the 2230 Santa Ynez builder by the city to access the lots with their southern border along Loomis. Another view of the easement running parallel to Loomis accessing the other lots and providing a gentle slope r My rental house at 2299 Santa Ynez accessing the carport with a steep drive. This house was also built without exceptions, according to the Guidelines. View from easement on southern border of lots, looking back at the Santa Ynez access. Please note the gentle slope of the easement and the steep drop off to Loomis. The city staff provided photo of the steep Loomis drop off was misleading. Despite being misleading, other builders have overcome these steep drop offs and built drives on steep slopes since most of the lots are steep in this neighborhood. Further back on the easement, again showing the gentle slope upward from Santa Ynez and the steep drop off shown by city staff. View from Loomis showing the extensive sidewalk required of the 2330 Santa Ynez builder that joins with no other sidewalk. He was not given the option to pay into a sidewalk fund and then join neighbors when and if the city ever decided to build sidewalks. He had to bear the sidewalk cost entirely. Thank you for your time on this matter. Linda White, co- chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors Linda White 2077 Slack Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 lindaleewhite 15 (a),chartennet October 21, 2015 Re: 2390 Loomis Street /48 Buena Vista Avenue USE -1520 -2015 October 28, 2015 Planning Commission Agenda Planning Commission Members, I would like to thank whoever is responsible for sending meeting notices out before the legal 5 days. This has given us a few extra days to prepare for the Wednesday meeting. This means a lot to the neighbors. I would like to have my previous letters of objection regarding 2390 Loomis Street entered into the record for possible future City Council appeal. Letters dated: August 20, 2015, September 12, 2015, September 21, 2015, and especially the September 30, 2015 response to the last Planning Commission meeting. In this letter I will concentrate on a few major objections but please realize that this does not minimize my previous objections. At the September 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting one of the commissioners stated that a secondary unit is a "Right ". I asked for and received Government Code Section 65852.2, Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002 (Assembly Bill 1866). Emphasis in the following passages have been added by me. Section 65583.1(a portion of State housing element law) "...The identification of realistic capacity should be based on the development trends of second -units in the previous housing element planning period and other relevant factors. " This very specifically states that properties should be identified for realistic capacity. This lot does not have realistic capacity for a secondary unit. The relevant factors to deny have been enumerated in my previous letters. Introduction "...By promoting the development of second - units, a community may ease a rental housing deficit, maximize limited land resources, and existing infrastructure and assist low and moderate- income homeowners with supplemental income. This is an admirable goal. However, is a million dollar +, 3- story, hillside, view home with elevator considered the definition of a low to moderate income homeowner in need of supplemental income? "...to encourage the creation of second -units while maintaining local flexibility for unique circumstances and conditions. " This states that the City is encouraged to create second units, not required. This is not a blanket right given to all homeowners/builders /developers. It further gives our local planning commission flexibility for unique circumstances and conditions. I would hope that the PC would consider and exercise its flexibility to deny a secondary unit on this already difficult building lot: a. because of the S -1 overlay b. recognize that the narrow, curved, fire access street (Buena Vista) is not compatible for higher density and the inherent parking difficulties c. the many reasons listed in my previous letters. "...Second units provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in -home health care providers, the disabled and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. " What assurances do we have that this secondary unit in an exclusive, million dollar + neighborhood will be rented at below market prices thus adhering to State Bill 1866? How will we be assured that the owner will live in the house as required by our City Ordinance? How effective has the enforcement of this ordinance been in the past? Derek Johnson, the previous Community Development Director and City manager, Katie Lictig and City Attorney, Christine Dietrick have all stated at various times that this is virtually unenforceable due to an inability to monitor residency. Please exercise the flexibility that has been give to you by the state to deny this secondary unit as it will exacerbate an existing negative condition in this neighborhood. (As an aside, I would hope that this planning commission would very strongly encourage, that the CDD create an additional overlay in this neighborhood requiring all future building, remodels, secondary dwellings, etc. to have increased parking requirements to ease one of the existing problems. In our Guidelines, "Streetscape" is often mentioned. Due to the high occupancy of the homes in our neighborhood, our streetscape is "ugly - parking lot- scape ". If more parking spaces were a requirement now, your job would be much easier and you would not have as much opposition to this project.) 65852.2. (a)(]) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the following: (A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria that may include, but are not limited to, adequacy of water and sewer services and impact of second units on traffic flow. This particular site should not be considered appropriate for a second unit due to the traffic flow on a narrow, red - curbed, fire access road. (B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and PJ standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places. We have standards regarding height and setbacks outlined in our San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines. The applicant is asking that exceptions to these very standards be given so that he may build a 5 bedroom, 4.5 bathroom, 2 kitchen, 2 balcony and 1 rooftop party deck home in an established neighborhood on an R -1 -S -1 lot. This simply is not compatible in size, scale, mass to the existing established neighborhood. Parking, in this neighborhood, generally and on Buena Vista specifically is not adequate for this McMansion. Numerous times in State Bill 1866 the following statement is made: "...a locality must adopt an ordinance with the intent offacilitating the development of second -units in appropriate residential zones... " Monterey Heights is an appropriate residential zone for secondary units but this particular lot is not for the various reasons outlined in this and previous letters. Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002 (Assembly Bill 1866) B. Changes to Government Code Section 65852.2 (I) (e) "...Off street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. " Off street parking is not feasible on Buena Vista due to the narrowness of the street, the red curb, the lack of visibility on the curves, etc. Adequate on -site parking is also not feasible in the reduced setback. Fire and life and safety conditions are not met because of the necessity of all cars to back out of the drive, into the blind curve of Buena Vista. Cars parked in the reduced setback driveway, reduce visibility of vehicles, bikers, skateboarders, pedestrians, etc using Buena Vista. Extra cars of residents (inhabiting 5 bedrooms), guests, repair and maintenance people, etc. will extend into the street and red curbed fire zone further exacerbating fire, life and safety conditions. There are many reasons to deny this secondary unit. I would hope that the Planning Commissioners would look to the spirit of the state law regarding second dwellings and ask if the spirit of this law is being met by this design on this steep, R -1 -S -1 lot. Will it provide affordable, below market housing? Will it assist a low or moderate income homeowner to supplement his income? Is this a realistic lot to approve a secondary unit? Major Issue #2 One of the Commissioners asked and received a vote to give staff an unequivocal direction to abandon Loomis Street as the access to this lot. My question is why was this direction given? Other homes in Monterey Heights built on steep lots have been forced by nature of their lots and the city to build steep driveway access. I do not have time to photograph all of the steep drives in this neighborhood and calculate the steepness of the slopes but I will do so on appeal. I would have no objections if this applicant designed his home according to the SLO Community Building Guidelines without exceptions and used Loomis as his access. He could place the garage under the house maintaining the views that he desires from the top of the lot. He could also provide additional parking to accommodate the residents of 5 bedrooms, guests, repair and maintenance trucks. Furthermore, I feel that allowing the applicant to develop the lot without installing sidewalks on Buena Vista is a breach of the public's safety. Providing a sidewalk on the Buena Vista frontage would improve the present dangerous conditions. Finally, cost to the developer to develop this lot should not enter into the equation. It is not the responsibility of City Staff or Planning Commission to make a difficult and expensive lot, affordable to the budget of the developer by granting exceptions. This project does not conform in size, scale and mass to the existing, established neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration on this very important issue to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Linda White, co- chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors 0 Linda White 2077 Slack Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 liiidakeewhite l SC<Dcharter.«et October 29, 2015 Planning Commission and Community Development Staff, Thank you very much for your careful study of the Buena Vista/Loomis project. I am impressed with the ability of the commissioners to distill the details and succinctly state the facts of the case. As you can see from my multiple page e -mails to you, this is not a gift that I possess. I would like to clear up a misconception, however. Two commissioners mentioned that the neighbors would prefer that this lot remain undeveloped. This is not the case. We would not oppose a truly residential single family home, designed around the constraints of the lot topography and City Guidelines, without need for exceptions and keeping in mind narrow Buena Vista and neighborhood compatibility. Yes, there are some large homes in the neighborhood but they are not built on this or similar lots. I am sure that a smaller square footage home could be designed for this lot, discreetly hidden from 101 and still not further tax the deplorable parking conditions that make these narrow, winding streets, without sidewalks so dangerous. It is only because of the care and diligence of the permanent residents who travel these roads daily that there are not more accidents. Bicyclists ignore the rules of the road, switching from bicyclist to pedestrian at a moment's notice. Skateboarder jump from curbs, if curbs are present into the middle of the street. Pedestrians walk in the middle of the roads, oblivious because of their electronic devices. Where vehicle parking is allowed, doors open into the melee without concern. I would like to make a few comments regarding statements made at this meeting: • If I understand correctly, it was stated that the fire and other departments would evaluate the project (red curb, winding road, high curb, speed bumps, etc.) once you approved the project and it got to the plan check stage. This seems to be putting the chicken before the egg. If those issues were addressed with the proper departments prior to reaching the PC, the project would already be designed with fewer loose ends for you to consider. • Again, with the sidewalk deferral - -- If the city continues to defer the installation of sidewalks with remodels, new construction, etc. because the sidewalks don't join another we will never get sidewalks to connect. We have to start somewhere and I think that the city should demand sidewalks NOW. All remodels and new construction should be required to have sidewalks whether they join another sidewalk or not - - -no more deferrals. Cost or difficulty to the developer should not be a factor. • There was a question as to whether parking should be allowed on Buena Vista so that it conforms to the rest of the neighborhood. Why would the City ever consider making this stretch of Buena Vista as ugly, crowded and dangerous as the other streets in Monterey Heights? If you do anything, it should be to encourage red curbing the entire neighborhood (except for temporary service vehicles). This would solve the problem of high density in one fell swoop. If residents were no longer allowed street parking, they could not have 6 -10 residents in a house designed for a family of 4 or 5 as this neighborhood was originally designed. This would also restore these homes to the workforce housing stock as they would no longer be able to command the outrageous rents that families can't afford. Only packing two or three students into each room makes the rents affordable. • As I stated in my previous e-mail and at the meeting, we really do appreciate receiving the notices more than five days before the meeting. It should, at least be five business days rather than five calendar days and I'd be even happier with 10 days to 2 weeks. If the projects have no objections or are considered minor exceptions, it would do no harm to delay approval by a few extra days. This would give the permanent residences the perception that the City is being transparent and open. A few day delay in beginning construction is a small price to pay for openness and transparency. * Finally, it would be so nice if each commissioner had an e -mail address posted so that we could send you correspondence directly instead of through the staff. Why can't you have: name.slocity.org addresses like staff and City Council? Once again, thank you for your time and hard work. I would not want to be in your place for a million dollars and certainly not as a volunteer. You are appreciated even when you don't see eye to eye with my views. Sincerely, Linda White, co- chairman Monterey heights Neighbors Mad As Hell The only thing I remember from an old movie was people throwing up their windows and shouting into the nighttime darkness, "I'm MAD AS HELL ". That is exactly what I am right now and here are the reasons, not in order of importance but merely as they spew forth: s Lack of transparency on the part of the City ■ No e -mail notice of this last minute ARC hearing despite the fact that I have told everyone at ALL of the meetings associated with this project that I want notice. I gave my e- mail address on ALL occasions so that the City didn't have to spend even 35 cents to notify me by mail. ■ Told by City staff, that I was legally noticed through the legal notices on Saturday and that was sufficient for this type of hearing. I can't even find the legal notice on my I -pad edition of the Tribune. When I receive a hardcopy edition, I do not read legal notices from beginning to end, especially when there is a City Council hearing scheduled on this very issue on Tuesday, January 19th. ■ No means to reach the ARC members directly but rather forced to go through the planner who is pushing this project and hope that correspondence is passed on in a timely manner. I have been present at least one meeting, where a correspondence by Ken Schwartz was overlooked and not given to the appropriate committee. Luckily, I had the time stamped copy with me and forced the planner to copy it during my three minutes and present it to the committee (PC or ARC, I don't remember which issue). * Another City and City staff attempt to SNEAK a project through without community /resident input. A few recent examples: ■ McCollum/Henderson administrative approval for a "family home" complete with "nursery" that is in actual fact a Fraternity satellite. ■ 323 Grand Ave. for 4 mega sized "workforce" houses on 4 City approved substandard mini -lots which were, in fact, being marketed as student housing while the developer lied to all regarding the true purpose. Luckily this project was denied by the City Council on neighborhood appeal. ■ Taft Street "workforce housing" approved and being built and now safely being marketed as student housing which was always the intent. http-.// slo. craigslist .org /ape/5385985736.htmi *Abusive staff tactics to exclude neighborhood input ■ It is not the neighbors problem that this developer was assured early on, by staff, that his project would easily sail through with merely an Administrative hearing. RThe staff must have known (and hopefully not been advising the developer) when it postponed the January 5th CC meeting to January 19th, that the developer (hopefully without staff suggestion) was trying to circumvent the system by adding this ARC meeting. Why were neighbors not informed at that time of the additional ARC meeting that was planned? ■Is this even legal? It seems that another City reviewing committee should not be weighing in on a matter that has already been denied by the Planning Commission and is up for City Council appeal. ■Would we the neighbors, have been permitted to appeal to the ARC for support prior to the City Council meeting? What standing would the ARC have had if we had? Would you have given an opinion or ruling? Would we have ever been put on your agenda ? ?? ■The project has been denied by the PC and we are awaiting a ruling by the City Council. This project should be tabled until that ruling is given. The ARC should have no say in this project as it has never been officially presented to the ARC. These are just a few of the thoughts that are making me MAD AS HELL. I will be preparing my specific objections to this project and will present them during public comment at the Monday ARC meeting. Please see that this e-mail is sent to the other ARC members. MAD AS HELL, Linda White, co- chairman Monterey Heights Neighbors