HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2022 1422 Monterey (ARCH-0020-2022), West
From:sara west <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:ARCH-0020-2022 & AFFH-0021-2022
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
These comments are in response to the Monday, 10/17/2022 meeting of the ARC
Application: 1422 and 1480 Monterey Street, SLO
I did attend the meeting, but am not a public speaker. I apologize for the delay in my comments, life
has a way of interferring with best intentions.
If this project were not location specific, I would give it high marks. It is attractive (good articulation)
and well thought out, and the parking design is really very clever. But, given that real estate is always
location specific, it does give me great concern. It will affect my familiy, my property values (I own
1420 and 1424 Palm Street), and I feel it will create significant traffic issues at the interesections of
Palm/California and Monterey/California.
1. I am unclear if a traffic study was required, but I think it would be reckless of the City to proceed
with this project without a report. I am not an expert and my opinion is based only on my experience
with California Blvd over 42 years and my anticipation of what 106 units of housing would
create. There are not a lot of opportunities to improve that intersection. The morning is the most
busy as there are high school students racing south, Cal Poly students racing north, commuters
heading west, bicycles flying down the hill, and pedestrians messing everything up by daring to walk
across the street. The afternoon rush is more spreadout starting with the end of school through 6pm
as the downtown, high school, and hospital employess all head home. Note that California is also
used by ambulances heading to French Hospital, and Monterey Street by emergency vehicles
heading to the grade.
2. The Commssion seemed to think less parking was needed. Again, not an expert, but parking on
Palm Street is already difficult, and overflow parking will not be acceptable. This block will probably
need to go to permit parking at that point.
3. Scott Martin implied that the lot at the end of the street was used for parking already. This has
been a vacant lot for maybe 30 years after the Spegiels and I complained to the City that parking was
1
not an appropriate use in R2. We remember well all the cars flying down the street to get to work or
head out. If you allow access via the end lot, it will effectively make the street a thouroughfare. We
live on a dead-end for a reason.
4. The middle lot is currently a large parking lot that is mostly empty and yet it generates most of the
traffic during the day on the 1400 block of Palm Street. I don't like it, but I acquiesce that that is an
existing condition.
5. Scott's comment that redwood trees don't do well in our climate is half true. If you water them,
they do fine. Example the redwoods at Cuesta Canyon Park, or the plentitude of redwoods in
Sacramento which is very hot and dry but also well irrigated.
6. Another attendee at Monday's meeting made the comment that the creek has flooded at that
location. Has this been considered?
7. I will also confirm that the speakers promoting the project were with the RRM group and not
random concerned citizens. (evidenced by the fact that they joined the group in conversation after
the meeting).
In closing, I feel the project is simply too large. I feel the exceptions for height and setbacks should
not be allowed. A smaller version of the project would create a better finished product with
more appropriate massing and scale. A project of reduced size would be more in proportion and
compatible with the neighborhood, and would hopefully impact the traffic less, and perhaps create
opportunities for more open space (tree preservation). I feel two floors of parking should be accessed
on Monterey. The senior housing parking on Palm through the middle lot would probably work.
Respectfully,
Sara West
San Luis Obispo, CA
2