HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2017 Item 12, Schmidt
-0- 7 -
I'TIJM NO. );L
From: Richard Schmidt (
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:03 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Agenda Item 12
Dear Council Members,
Please support the appeal on this item.
pR ECE1 V
JAN 17 2017
As the city continues to grow, it must do so in a way that maintains the livability and character of its
residential neighborhoods. Dana Street is a unique and special in -town neighborhood, exactly the sort
of place you need to protect from the sort of incursion this development would produce.
Think how you'd feel if a huge building like this went up next to you, blocking your sunlight, shading
the PV panels you installed at great cost in part due to city encouragement to "go solar," causing 24/7
overlook loss of your privacy, with busy parking feet from your house without even noise or headlight
mitigation, etc.
Would you feel the city was being fair if presented with this next to YOUR house?
Aside from the inequity of this project's huge impacts on nearby homeowners, I'd like to offer two
additional comments:
1. The city's mixed use parking reductions are the Emperor's New Clothes. They make no sense, and
are not reality based. By allowing them as staff currently administers them, you are wrecking the city.
First, every apartment needs at least one parking space. People do have cars, and cars need to be
parked. Second, to reduce parking because of some mythical "shared" time of use is nonsensical.
You're trying to get people to leave their cars home and walk, bike or bus to work, so the premise that
resident cars will be absent during business hours is logically untenable. Third, in this case, to allow
too few parking spaces and then allocate some of those as "off site parking" for another use is just
plain wrong. If the Creamery cannot provide on site parking, they should pay the substantial parking
in lieu fees and just not have any parking of their own. All the parking on this site should be for on-site
use.
When you revise the zoning regulations, please tighten the mixed use parking reductions so they
apply only when circumstances clearly indicate they'll work.
2. Planning staff's advocacy for every developer is just plain wrong. THEY ARE PAID BY OUR TAX
DOLLARS, YET THEY CONSISTENTLY TAKE POSITIONS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AND IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPER'S INTERESTS. I have seen a staff planner tell an advisory
body that she "represents the applicant!" This is not right! I am not alone in being disgusted by staff's
advocacy rather than serving the public interest. Mayor Ken Schwartz sent a blistering letter on this
subject to the Planning Commission not long ago. And Ken, as you know, is Mr. Planning who knows
what's right and what's wrong, what's competent and what's not. This sort of egregious staff advocacy
is relatively recent, a product of the current city manager's regime.
I have seen 30 -odd years worth of planning staffs devoted to the public interest first and foremost.
Not too long ago, every staff report on a development project had a "general plan conformity and non-
conformity" enumeration and a similar planning rule consistency accounting. The problems were laid
out in black and white, for all to see. The discussion focused on how a project could be changed to
conform to our rules. Today none of this happens. Instead, staff only tells you about the rules they
allege support their always positive advocacy for projects. You never hear from them about the
conflicts and violations. You only learn of problems if a project gets appealed.
This is just plain wrong, and you need to order your direct employee, the city manager, to change it.
In better days, a staff report on this appeal would have exposed this project's problems and
recommended you uphold the appeal.
Please uphold the appeal.
Richard Schmidt