Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/28/2021 Item 4a, Marlier Wilbanks, Megan From:John F. Marlier < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Planning Commission Meeting, July 28, 2021. The 468-500 Westmont Project. Attachments:Comment on 468-500 Westmont copy.pdf 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: The 468-500 Westmont project. (File Number: SBDV-0169-2020 ER # EID-0170-2020) Please read our attached comments. 1 From: John and Joyce Marlier (homeowners at 547 Stanford Drive since 1990) Re: The 468-500 Westmont project. (File Number: SBDV-0169-2020 ER # EID-0170-2020) Thank you for responding to neighbors on Stanford Drive concerning the lack of notification concerning the 468- 500 Westmont project. Allowing this item to be considered de novo at the upcoming July 27th PC meeting allowed the Stanford Drive residents some additional time to gather information relative to public comment. We will not be able to attend the meeting to comment in person so this email will need to suffice as our comments on the project. Although many of the comments below were given in our previous emails, we feel it is important to reiterate them before the committee deliberates approval of the Westmont project. 1. Environmental. We are well aware of our neighbor’s comments concerning the published environmental impact report. • Some from the Stanford Dive group intend to comment at the meeting on the potential damage to riparian habitat from the Westmont project. We fully support their views. • Another environmental issue is drainage. It is clear the new structures, roads and driveway surfaces will cause considerably more runoff into the existing neighborhood. The current report from the PC staff indicates that a retention basin in addition to classic storm sewers is the solution to drainage issues. Will these two mitigations be enough to save the creek from flooding and prevent damage to existing homes during heavy rain years? We are already aware of significant water accumulation under the raised foundation of at least one neighboring home on Stanford Drive during such rain events. We believe a complete and independent hydrologic report to address this issue is imperative prior to approval of the project. 2. Parking/Traffic Safety/Traffic Flow. We were encouraged to hear previously that at least one planner visited our affected area. When both Cal Poly and Cuesta are in session Stanford Drive takes on a very different look. Unfortunately, the time has passed for PC staff members to directly observe this impact because the majority of Cal Poly and Cuesta students have left the area for summer break. Here are the issues: • Overcrowded parking is highly related to traffic safety/flow. Despite having a parking district allowing each residence to possess two on-street parking passes to park between 10 PM and 10 AM. However, enforcement of the parking district is poor which leads to times when there is no available parking. As a result, residents must often search for parking on other streets outside the district. Overcrowded parking leads to limited sight view which in turn leads to potential collisions between cars, bikes and people. When Cuesta and Cal Poly are in session, excessive traffic even makes a dangerous to back out of one’s own driveway. The Westmont project will exacerbate this problem. • Stanford Drive was constructed as a narrow and curvy road in an era of low traffic volume; it was built to accommodate the older single-family model with one or two cars per household. In its previous report, PC staff used this outdated model from the Institute of Transportation Engineers to arrive a value of 9.7 trips/residence/day. That model didn’t even begin to account for high number of existing student rentals or for the effect of the Westmont project with associated ADUs and JDUs. In addition, Stanford drive is narrower than the other two entrances to the Westmont project (Cuesta Drive and Jeffery Dive), making Stanford Drive the least capable of safely handling this increased load. As a recent example, the sideview mirror on my legally parked car was taken off by a hit and run person. Unfortunately, the next real opportunity for PC staff to observe the full impact that parking has on traffic flow and safety will not occur until mid-September 2021. Only after that date will CP staff be able to collect relevant data to enable a fair decision. • In addressing traffic concerns PC staff has stated that by connecting Stanford and Cuesta the two streets would “become safer” because it would “improve emergency access” and “a second means of evacuation.” This is true but it begs a more complicated question: is a small gain in emergency response time more important than the daily safety concerns generated by additional traffic driving down a narrow and winding Stanford Drive? Would a firetruck be able to negotiate the crowded parking situation? The need for emergency access and evacuation are real issues but are fortunately quite rare. On the other hand, increased traffic flow from the Westmont project exceeds the designed capacity of Stanford Drive and presents a daily constant risk for residents. Which is more important? • Finally, the PC staff also noted it is undesirable that Cuesta Drive and Stanford Drive “do not terminate in a cul-de-sac turnaround.” This is not exactly true for Stanford Drive, which has a cul-de-sac turnaround very near its northern terminus. Thank you for your kind attention.