HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/7/2023 Item 6d, Smith
carolyn smith <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:March 7th Council Meeting - Consent Agenda Item #6d - North Chorro
Neighborhood Greenway Poject
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Mayor Stewart and Council Members,
As an RQN Board member, I'm requesting that you help preserve a neighborhood's quality of life. It was
just a few years ago when Neighborhood Wellness was a Major City Goal. Historically residents' quality of
life has been considered very important to this city since leaders realized it was a desirable attribute that
draws people to want to live here and keeps them here. Hopefully, this council still values our
neighborhoods and will keep an open mind, set aside any possible bias, listen to and compassionately
evaluate, and respect residents' concerns regarding the North Chorro Neighborhood Greenway Project.
I've been following this project for quite some time and have heard many residents who live in this
neighborhood vehemently object to its scope, and how it will be detrimental to their health, welfare, and
quality of life. Unfortunately, in the past, their pleas have been disregarded. One of their main concerns is
the removal of a large number of parking spaces on Broad and Chorro. This will create extreme hardship
for many residents living on these streets. If you've ever driven down Broad and Chorro in the evenings
and weekends, you'd see that there are very few vacant parking spaces. Student rentals and ADU's have
resulted in more vehicles needing to park on these streets. There are even students from nearby multi-
family projects parking in this neighborhood since the new projects in which they live were not required to
supply sufficient parking. I know of two students who do this and they've told me others in their project
are doing so as well, so it is happening. After this greenway is built, where do you expect these cars to
park? Many residents will have to park far from their homes to unload groceries and/or children,
wheelchairs, walkers, etc. Healthcare and construction workers will struggle to find parking, and food,
medical supplies, and other product deliveries will be forced to block traffic to complete their deliveries.
Residents will have no choice but to park their cars in other nearby streets that will then cause those
streets to suffer from parking problems. These problems could very easily create conflicts among
desperate residents trying to find parking as close to their homes as possible.
Additionally, this project is now estimated to cost over SIX times more than when it was first presented to
council and surely will become even more costly after construction begins. Taking millions of dollars from unallocated
Measure G-20 funds and other budgeted infrastructure accounts is not judicious use of our financial resources,
particularly since this project will serve so few. There are so many other vital projects that this large amount of funds could
be used for that are more urgent and would benefit a larger segment of our community. Therefore, it might be wise, at this
time, to reconsider the scope of this project. In the past, council may have thought the cost/benefit ratio justified the
inconvenience this project would create for neighborhood residents but perhaps that should be reviewed again due to this
unexpected monumental increase.
Perhaps it would be useful if the concerned parties (staff, neighborhood residents, and project bike
advocates) sat down together and discussed a reduced project that would be less intrusive to the
neighborhood but still meet much of the project's goals. Previously, several well-qualified residents who
live in this neighborhood (bikers and architects) made detailed suggestions for a project that would
provide effective bike and pedestrian safety, but still respect the needs of the neighborhood residents.
Their ideas were dismissed without consideration and sadly the proponents of this project were
disrespectful and condescending to the residents and their suggested alternate plan. However, since the
1
price tag for this project has increased by millions of dollars, perhaps, now might be a good time to
have a serious look at the residents' alternative plan in the hope of finding a workable, fiscally responsible
project that all parties can live with.
Therefore, please do not approve staff's recommendations for funding this obviously now over-priced
project and instruct them to arrange for all parties involved to meet and come up with a plan that meets
project goals without deteriorating residents' quality of life. The “my way or the highway” approach to a
situation is never a good way to find a viable solution to an issue that involves legitimate concerns. If all
parties involved reach a compromise on this project, it can avoid unanticipated negative consequences for
everyone and make the project much more beneficial and successful. While encouraging more biking is a
worthy endeavor, I'm certain you'd agree it shouldn't turn its back on residents who have valid concerns
and whose quality of life will be negatively affected.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Carolyn Smith--SLO City Resident
2