HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/2021 Item 2, Keehn
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Becky Keehn <
To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Codron, Michael; e-mailcouncil@slocity.org; CityClerk
Subject:Public Comment on 468-500 Westmont
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
From: Becky Keehn, 628 Stanford Drive, SLO
Date: May 29, 2021
Subject: Public Comment on the 468-500 Westmont Project Proposal
To: kvanleeu@slocity.org,mcodron@slocity.org,cityclerk@slocity.org,emailcouncil@slocity.org
Dear Development Planner and Director and City Clerk,
I ask that you please forward this along to the City Planning Commission members as well. I attended and participated
th
in the May 26 City Planning Commission meeting regarding the 468-500 Westmont Project. I truly appreciated the fact
that the Planning Commission members present were very open to hearing from the public regarding our specific
concerns about this project. We understand that postcards were supposedly sent less than 2 weeks before this meeting.
However, still to this day, I have not received one nor has anyone else on Stanford Drive that I know of. Had I not heard
th
unofficially about the SLO Tree Committee Meeting on May 17 I would have been totally unaware of this project and
how far along it was in the planning stages, and that there was a City Planning Commission Meeting on May 26th with
the intent of gaining consensus on recommending this project to the City Council. Along with Genevieve & Adolf Czech,
as soon as the Agenda Packet was available on the City Planning website, we printed out portions of the packet and
distributed them to approximately 14 Stanford Drive homeowners. Discussions among the homeowners revealed a
consistent pattern, in which not one of those we spoke with knew that this development proposal was well on its way,
and that the only 2 roads with access for 18 of the 23 homes were to be Stanford Dr. and Cuesta Dr.
Since the project is referred to as the 468-500 Westmont Project Proposal, it is troubling that the only accesses to these
homes being considered are via Stanford Drive and Cuesta Drive. The only notification found in the neighborhood
regarding the project meeting was inconspicuously posted at the tiny portion of Westmont on the west border of the
property near Jeffery. There is no access to the property at this point, and it is unlikely that anyone would see this sign,
other than the 1 home that is near this short section of Westmont. No one would have any reason to be in this location
unless they were trespassing.
Turning a 70 year old cul-de-sac street into a thoroughfare is a huge deal and surely would have to be acknowledged by
the Applicants/Planners as having a large impact on Stanford Drive residences. This is why I was so utterly surprised that
during the presentation of this project to the Planning Commission that there was not a single mention of this fact. Had
we not notified neighbors in advance of this meeting, I wonder if the planning commission members would have ever
been informed of this key flawed feature of the plan itself.
Below, I quote the agenda packet regarding the LUE Policy 2.2.3 Neighborhood Traffic:
Item 2 – Packet page 5
LUE Policy 2.2.3 Neighborhood Traffic: Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All neighborhood
street and circulation improvements should favor pedestrians, bicyclists, and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential
streets should be slow. To foster suitable traffic speed, street design should include measures such as narrow lanes,
1
landscaped parkways, traffic circles, textured crosswalks, and, if necessary, stop signs, speed humps, bollards, and on-
street parking and sidewalks. LUE Policy 2.2.4 Neighborhood Connections.
This Westmont plan proposal ignores this LUE Policy. The traffic caused by this project will not only be intrusive but
unsafe as Stanford Drive is a narrow curvy road with cars and trucks parked on both sides of the street which makes for
a very narrow passage for cars driving past each other. When Cal Poly and Cuesta College are in session, driveways are
full and finding open street parking on Stanford is almost impossible. As mentioned by others on this block, our street
has turned into approximately 50% student rentals with 4-5 students per house, most of them own cars and trucks
which populate the street.
Item 2 – Packet page 6
The design of the subdivision protects the existing neighborhood from intrusive traffic by only connecting the two
existing streets to the south, avoiding any increase in cut-through traffic between other existing neighborhoods and
Highway 1. The subdivision design also incorporates a potential bicycle and pedestrian connection to the east, as well as
parkways, on-street parking, and sidewalks.
I find the above statement incredibly telling. It is basically saying let’s have Stanford and Cuesta residents take the brunt
of this project so that other parts of the surrounding neighborhood remain undisturbed. Stanford Drive is simply not
designed to be a thoroughfare. I implore all of you to come and drive on this street up to this project so that you can see
for yourselves what the reality is and how impractical and unsafe this plan is. While Stanford Drive is currently
congested with parked vehicles, consider that this is relatively light compared to normal conditions, when Cal Poly and
Cuesta colleges are in full attendance and Covid concerns are not limiting activities in the neighborhood. Others have
written about the flawed portion of the Transportation study of which I reference below.
Item 2 – Packet page 107
The 2018 OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA states that absent substantial
evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day
generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. According to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, a single-family residential unit generates 9.44
average daily trips (ADT). The project would create 23 new parcels that could result in the development of single family
residential uses, with an ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses. Operation of the project may create more than
110 trips per day; however, based on the City’s Residential VMT Screening Map, the project is located in an area of the
city that would result in average VMT less than or equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a project in this area
would result in VMT generation below the City’s adopted thresholds. Therefore, future potential development Item 2
Packet Page 107 ER # EID-0170-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 of
the project is not anticipated to generate VMT at a rate that is inconsistent with adopted plans and impacts would be
less than significant.
th
As discussed in the May 26 meeting and in comments submitted previously, it is more than likely that as Stanford Dr.
has evolved over the last few years into more than 50% student rentals, the same will hold true for this development
due to its proximity to both Cuesta and Cal Poly. This 110 trip model is incredibly flawed when taking this into
consideration. Student rental housing trends are here, and it is easy to predict that these trends will continue.
I close with a recommendation which I believe would be a wise and practical “Planning” modification. I see that the 3
lots on the West side with access to Westmont are noted as Phase 2 of this project. This would permanently take the
Westmont St. access to this project off the table which I believe would be completely irresponsible and impractical from
a City Planning perspective. This is also the portion of the development most sensitive to environmental concerns which
have been so comprehensively described by others. Good planning requires allowing room for
improvement/adjustments and this project could be redesigned to allow for this access until much later in the
development so that as other phases are developed and populated, the impact on Stanford can be truly evaluated with
the option to redirect traffic via Westmont (W) if needed.
2
Thank you for taking the matters above under consideration.
Becky Keehn
3