HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Papp)Meeting: Ae-'
Item:
Dear ARC Members:
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUL 2 9 2016
29 July 2016 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Members of CHC have talked to residents and other interested parties, done site visits, read
a ream of reports and a slew of correspondence, and held lengthy and thorough hearings
on 71 Palomar. Now it's your turn. The CHC has forwarded to ARC a recommendation that
represents its agreement on the issues within our purview.
It's not my role as an individual member to comment here on that product. I want to add,
however, how dismayed I am by the direction the process has taken and caution against its
further degradation. Writing as an individual member—not representing the CHC—I feel
that builders, city staff, commissions, and the community we represent have the
responsibility to follow regulations, guidelines, and precedents consistently and
predictably and the right to expect they be followed by others, whatever the degree of
controversy or public speech over a particular project. Otherwise it becomes impossible for
anyone on any side to responsibly change or responsibly preserve San Luis Obispo.
• We get many developers who propose projects to the maximum dimensions, counting on
offering minor mitigations later on. At 71 Palomar, the developer met with neighbors and
redesigned the project in response to their concerns; forwarded a proposal to CHC that was
conscientiously thought out to be sensitive to our past standards concerning new
construction encroaching on, fronting, or overtopping Master List structures; and, when
the committee asked for further mitigation, offered reductions dramatically beyond what I
have seen from any other project. This is a model of cooperation we should encourage. If
we punish it, other developers are sure to take note and behave accordingly.
• With each redesign, concerns for existing residents and a Master List structure have been
addressed, but the project has become more cramped for its future residents, who have no
voice in the process, and whose usable open space and privacy have been sacrificed.
• Vocal claims made in opposing the project have been short on citation, documentary or
scientific evidence, or familiarity with precedent and best practice in the fields in question.
• The ever -shifting criticisms of the development have relied on ad hominem attack of
those involved in the design, evidence -gathering, analytical, and deliberative process,
whether developer, contractors, city staff, or citizen members of city committees.
Accusations of bullying, strong-arming, railroading, malfeasance, incompetence, and—
apparently the worse sin in San Luis—not being from here have been rife.
Whatever decision the ARC makes, I hope it encourages cooperation of property owners
and developers with the community; considers the needs of future residents as well as
current ones; and privileges facts and analysis over personal and emotional attacks.
Sincerely,
James Papp