High density 88-unit JAHP is Cancelled

The 88-unit version of the JAHP has been cancelled by the school district.  This was initially reported in the on-line version of the Tribune on the evening of January 12th and published in the print version on January 13th.  You can see a copy of the on-line version here on this website.

Ryan Pinkerton, Assistant Superintendent, SLCUSD, has a letter posted to this website, briefly outlining the school district’s next steps for the site.

The City has issued a Notice of Cancellation, Postponement Notice 2-13-14.pdf, regarding further approval process and meeting about the JAHP.

Hats off to the school district and the school board for recognizing the problems with the high density approach for the use of the property and being able to make a rational decision going forward.  It is often not easy to recognize that previous assumptions may have changed, that the legal environment may have changed, that needs may have changed and that changes in the economics evaluated for previous decisions may necessitate reversing those decisions.  But the school system management and board were able to make that hard, but correct decision.

All those neighbors who have helped to bring the facts to the school district should feel proud of how they have contributed to creating a better environment for the City of San Luis Obispo.  But we must also remember, this is just the first round of a process to determine what, if any, development should occur on that site.  And to continue to accept the responsibility of helping the school district understand the needs of the neighborhoods potentially affected by any development.

We should be aware of the lessons learned in this process and should continue to work together, neighborhoods hand-in-hand.

Good work neighbors !!

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “High density 88-unit JAHP is Cancelled

  1. Thank you for your excellent coverage of this issue. Whatever project comes of this, it will be so much better because of the vigilance of the neighborhood and our continued collaboration with the school district and city.

  2. Without the web page and your diligence in reporting, informing and mobilizing the thoughtful opposition would have been far less successful, Thank you! And let’s all keep up the good work.

  3. best news ever, after the ARC meeting, i don’t think they could have gone on one more minute. it was quite a debacle for the promoters of the project. rather sureal. good job all!

  4. Lanny…we appreciate the web page…your efforts have kept the neighborhood informed and focused…I agree with Gini…the project that develops will be so much better for the neighborhood and the city.

  5. Hi Lanny – and congratulations to you for a positive result for a lot of good work. I amstill following up on this for two reasons;

    First – I think this represents a classic example of where the process currently used by public plannersis a mess and costs the taxpayers unnecessary expense to make basic land use decisions. This same thingis also apparent in the Cal Polycontroversy over the Grand Avenue housing they are planning.

    In addition – I think it is imperative that the community have input to what ever the School District proposes next. I am very curious about what kind of out reach they will do to assure that they do not continueto make decisions and big expenditures on a project that has no potential for community support.

    Call if you have a particular plan of action for follow up.

    Thanks – Russ Seacat (704-1242)

    ________________________________

  6. Lanny. Your site has been so helpful. I speak for my immediate part of the neighborhood that we really appreciate what you have been doing here and all the effort you have put into this project. Paul Gabriel – Fixlini Street

  7. i just want to add, i am not certain how to do so, but i do NOT want apartments of any sort. i guess i should write pinkerton a letter. again, with apartments we will get poly students. or, even in general, folks with no ownership of the property.

    also the possible 20 or so houses still seems large. anyone with a good idea for the next steps? pinkerton’s letter is so vague on the possibilities, i believe we should urge him to refine that type of project with our input.

    after all, we are taxpayers at the slcusd level, and will get hit directly again if they put up another inappropriate plan. pinkerton “complains” that the slcusd has already spent a large amount of money promoting and studing the plan they just scuttled.

    that money belongs to the taxpayers, and they are stewards of those funds. they need to very carefully consider what comes next.

    • I heard a dollar figure mentioned that the slcusd has spent. It can’t be correct.
      Does anyone know the actual amount already spent on this project?

  8. Kudos to Lanny, and the entire team who sent letters, and showed up at meetings, and spread the word to others about this project.

    Let’s all thank the School Board & their personnel for their courageous decision to back down on the project. They were not going to make any money personally, thought it was a good decision for income for the school district, had a lot of people upset at their proposal, and made a decision to change their minds. Kudos to them, too.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s