HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/2021 Item 2, Marlier
Wilbanks, Megan
From:John F. Marlier <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Item #2, Planning Commission Meeting, Wednesday, May 26, 2021
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
From: John and Joyce Marlier (homeowners at 547 Stanford Drive since 1990)
Re: Item #2, Planning Commission Meeting, Wednesday, May 26, 2021
(File Number: SBDV-0169-2020 ER # EID-0170-2020)
Commission Members:
We have only recently become aware of the scope of the project cited above. Information was not easily obtained and was not widely
distributed. I am aware that various neighbors will speak at the meeting or have written about other issues, including tree removal,
safety for residents during construction, and water. The number of short-term rentals on our block limits the number of responses you
will receive. Thus, it becomes even more important for me to add the following concerns at this late date.
1. Traffic Flow: The model (see below) used by the city planners is not appropriate for Stanford Drive.
“According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition, a single-family residential unit
generates 9.44 average daily trips (ADT).” Page 107 of the above-mentioned city planning document.
Stanford Drive has seen a large increase in single-family houses converted to student rentals. Approximately ½ of the homes on
Stanford Drive are currently student rentals. These rentals can (and do) have a maximum of 5 unrelated people per single-family unit
and have five vehicles rather than two for a typical family. It is reasonable to expect the new housing to become rental units, due to
proximity to Cal Poly and Cuesta, both growing institutions. Because of the preponderance of rental units, the single-family
assumption used in the planner’s calculations cannot give an accurate estimation of the number of trips per day. The formula does not
work for the existing homes on Stanford Drive and it certainly will not work for the new development. The formula based on the
single-family model is easy for planners to use but is not accurate in a non-family environment. It grossly underestimates the traffic
burden.
2. Traffic Safety. As student rentals increased on Stanford Drive driving has become more hazardous. The street constructed was narrow
and curvy. It was built to accommodate the original single-family model. The increase in rentals has already made the road difficult to
travel, due to excessive numbers of parked vehicles which jeopardizes two-way traffic. As an example, the sideview mirror on my
legally parked car was recently taken off by a hit and run person. The increased traffic from the new development will only make
matters worse.
3. Parking. More than a decade ago we established a parking district to help control the number of parked vehicles and thereby increase
safety. Each house is issued two on-street parking permits. This measure has met with limited success. As rentals increased, landlords
increased driveway size to hold 3 or more cars (often in violation of city code) and parking on the street maxed out. Apparently,
garages are often used for gym equipment or illegal housing. In addition, the parking district is not enforced very often. If the
proposed development is approved by the city, at the very least the parking district should be extended to that area so as to not make
matters worse for existing vehicle parking.
1
4. ADU Approval. It appears that ADUs will be approved for the new development. How many unrelated people can occupy an ADU?
How many unrelated people can occupy a given lot? This hidden increase in population density will greatly affect points 1-3, above.
Conclusion.
The owners of the property to be developed have certain rights to develop their property. We do not dispute this. However, it falls
upon the city and its planners to protect the common welfare of all citizens. Increased traffic on Stanford Drive, a street with over 60
years of history as a street that ended in a cul-de-sac, is now being asked to shoulder the traffic burden of this development. The
original Stanford Drive development was not built to handle this task safely. What is needed is a new plan which spreads the
additional traffic volume and parking problem equitably.
2