I find it interesting that Karen B. of SLO wrote (my paraphrase) in part: the first sentence in the project description posted on the devloper’s website state that the Grand Avenue project is the ideal location to develop homes for rental purposes. My first instinct ask: what business is that of yours? Do we now live in a world where a single family residence cannot be located in a place that is “ideal for rental purposes”? Statistically, we are told, the city of SLO consists of 62% rentals, so in my mind, it would make sense for a developer to design and develop a project that would be suitable for the majority of the city, that is, RENTERS! Also, let’s assume it is true that the location is ideal for rentals, then that is what I would expect the developer to build! How is that a negative? Renters have to live somewhere too.
Karen B. of SLO also writes: The developers know full well that no family would live in a house that backs up to one of the noisiest streets in San Luis Obispo.
In addition, Councilman Carpenter indicated that he couldn't imagine any single families who would want to live in that environment.
To both Karen and Dan, I reply: I believe a family would be interested in buying these homes - I know that I would! Read on. In Los Angeles (where we lived before we moved here 23 years ago), we lived in a gang-torn city (Hawthorne) with our 2 small children because that was all we could afford (LA housing is way more expensive than in SLO). We would have loved to live in one of the homes in question that this developer is proposing, if the only downside is that it backs up to a noisy street. Because housing is so expensive here, people live in the best place they can afford, even if it has drawbacks like a noisy street.
*****JOHN ASHBAUGH, SLO CITY COUNCIL, RESPONSE 6/4/2105: On Jun 4, 2015, at 9:31 AM, Ashbaugh, John <jashbaugh@slocity.org> wrote:
Thank you, Tim. The neighborhood was very well-organized in their opposition to this project – and very misguided, in my opinion. I was sorry to see the Council majority caved in to their NIMBY-ism.
*****CARLYN CHRISTIANSON RESPONSE 6/4/2105: I also heard back from Carlyn. Here's a summary: Carlyn is a big supporter of in-fill housing, and was disappointed in this result. She believes that this project is compatible with the neighborhood, and hopes that Architectural Review Committee (ARC) will continue to state that about the original 2-story project. It was designed to meet all city requirements, gets approved by the ARC, meets the city goals for in-fill housing, and still gets shot down by a vocal minority. Back to the drawing board for the developer.
Tim's question: Why would future developers propose in-fill projects like this one, when this is the result? Time will tell if they continue to do so, or just turn around and sell, and move on to more buildable projects.
*****ORIGINAL ARTICLE 6/4/2105: On Tuesday, 6/2/2015, by a vote of 3-2, the San Luis Obispo city council denied approval for 4 family homes near the Cal Poly campus (323 and 353 Grand Ave., SLO). You can read the excellent, well-balanced Tribune article ("Homes proposed near Cal Poly should be smaller, SLO City Council decides" by Cynthia Lambert) on this decision by clicking here.
Council members
John Ashbaugh jashbaugh@slocity.org and
Carly Christansen cchristianson@slocity.org
voted in favor.
Dan Revoire drivoire@slocity.org,
Dan Carpenter dcarpenter@slocity.org and
Jan Marx jmarx@slocity.org
voted to send it back for re-design.
Below is my rebuttal to their decision. I emailed this retort to all 5 city council members. I will post their responses here, if any.
The city of SLO needs additional housing stock of all types and sizes. Consider that SLO has many more daytime employees than it has housing to put them; therefore, workers commute into work in SLO from the surrounding communities. Residential infill in SLO is good for the environment, and allows people to bike to work instead of drive - a healthy lifestyle that SLO is know for pursuing.
The local housing builders that I regularly communicate with say that the city of SLO makes this difficult or impossible. Though the city council denies this is true, this decision is proof of this.
Just a side note: when we moved to SLO as a married couple with 2 small children, we wanted to buy a 4 bedroom home. There were none on the market at all - at any price. We bought a 3 bedroom home instead, which we continue to live in today. It is safe to say that there is still a shortage of “family-sized” homes in SLO. This decision ensures that will continue.
I am confused about how they think that a family-sized 2-story, 4 bedroom home will attract STUDENTS, yet a much smaller 1 story home in the same location - too small for a family - will somehow attract FAMILIES. I am afraid the SLO City Council is confused. It is the other way around. Families with children are looking for a spacious home that their family can grow into (this was the project that was voted down). Students are looking for a cheap place to sleep (this is likely the project that the city council will approve).
With this decision, the SLO Nanny State continues. The developers jumped through all the hoops put in front of them, and were still denied. The developer did not ask for ANY exceptions to city zoning ordinances. The project was approved by the Architectural Review Committee and meets the city’s design guidelines. It provides desperately needed infill housing and OBJECTIVELY is not an outlier in the neighborhood.
Besides, when did building larger homes where tiny homes once existed become a problem here? It is done regularly and consistently in SLO (city and county).
The student rental problems in this neighborhood already exist, and will continue to exist, until Cal Poly builds more on and off campus student housing. Whatever is built on this property will not change that.
With this decision, the council has somehow decided that the home itself is the bad actor, and not the future landlords and Cal Poly students. Put the blame where it belongs: First, on Cal Poly for not housing more students on and off campus. Second, on unscrupulous landlords and unruly Cal Poly students.
Finally, it is pure speculation that these homes will be bought by slumlords and rented out to Cal Poly students - not a sure thing at all. However, that is not Big Brothers ...errrr... the city of SLO's decision to make. If an architect wants to design a home that they think would be desireable for students, that is their perogative - even if you disagree. This is still America where we have freedoms, though they are every-diminishing.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteThis project was designed for groups of students, not as an affordable home for young growing families. Infill is not supposed to be incompatible with the neighborhood. This got by ARC because they defined the neighborhood too narrowly and in a way that accommodated earlier projects that were promoted as workforce family but actually became housing for groups of students because of location. The established neighborhood was not considered by ARC. John Ashbaugh's comment about NIMBYism is also off-base, particularly because he voices concern to me about stabilizing this neighborhood. But his votes belie what he says. He doesn't really care about stabilizing this neighborhood. If he did, he would have voted with the majority.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSharon, thanks for your comment. I appreciate your point of view. We'll just have to disagree.
DeleteI still contend that: "The student problems in this neighborhood already exist, and will continue to exist, until Cal Poly builds more on and off campus student housing. Whatever is built on this property will not change that."
And also this: “With this decision, the council has somehow decided that the home itself is the bad actor, and not the future landlords and Cal Poly students.”
If an architect wants to design a home that they think would be desireable for students, that is their perogative. This is still America where we have freedoms, though they are every-diminishing. Again, my opinion, not worth the digital ink that it is printed on! I appreciate your involvement in the community.