HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/18/2025 Item 4a, Anonymous
FW: 2932 Augusta Street
From: L H <
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 12:19:42 PM
To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike
<MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>
Subject: 2932 Augusta Street
> City Council Members,
>
> As a resident of Augusta Street, I have several concerns about the proposed development at 2932 Augusta Street
(ARCH-0464-2023, TREE-0561-2025).
>
> I’m wondering how this project was approved with a waiver for parking considering the current parking situation
on Augusta. This street—between Laurel and Sinsheimer Elementary—has numerous apartment complexes, and
street parking is already at a premium. Most 2-person households own 2 cars, and if the household includes 3
adults, that often means 3 cars. This new project could add up to 40+ cars needing street parking. The math is
easy: If each household in this new development owns 2 cars, that’d be 56 cars, and minus the 14 parking spaces,
that’d leave 42 cars that would have to park on the street. And while there could be fewer than 56 cars owned by
households in this new development, there could also be more. On any given day, a person is lucky to find even 8
available parking spaces on the street; adding 40+ more cars would mean residents would be forced to park many
blocks away, and many of those parking on the street are seniors living at Judson Terrace. Is the city council not
concerned about forcing numerous residents to park long distances from their homes in order to accommodate
the plans of a single property owner?
>
> Also, how many of these 28 units would meet the criteria for “low income” or “affordable”? If none, does SLO
need more unaffordable units?
>
> Some local residents have said that the owner of 2932 Augusta also owns one or more parcels directly behind
(fronting on Johnson). If any additional parcel is owned by the same property owner and located adjacent, why
would the city not require the owner to set aside some additional property for adequate parking spaces? That’s
just one of the questions that will likely be raised by members of the public at the Architectural Review
Commission meeting to review this project.
>
> Sincerely,
> A concerned resident
>
> Sent from my iPhone
1