The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-24-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Small)1 Lomeli, Monique Subject:Letter to Planning Commission re: 22 Chorro From: Camille Small [ Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:19 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Letter to Planning Commission re: 22 Chorro August 24, 2016 Dear Mr. Larson and fellow Planning Commissioners, I understand that you work for Rincon, which is doing work for 71 Palomar, a nearby project of similar type and controversy, by the same developer as 22 Chorro I’m wondering if it would constitute a conflict of interest for you to pass judgment on 22 Chorro? Perhaps you have already decided to recuse yourself, in which case I thank you for your good judgment and desire to do the right thing. If you haven’t decided to recuse, don’t you think you should in order the public doesn’t get the idea your vote might be influenced by your business life? Thank you, Camille Small Meeting: PC 08-24-2016 Item 1 Received 08-24-16 Comm. Dev. Dept. 1 Lomeli, Monique Subject:Planning Commission 22 Chorro From: Camille Small [ Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 6:53 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission 22 Chorro Please print 2 attachments Thank You, Camille Small Meeting: PC 08-24-2016 Item 1 Received By: Community Development Department 08-24-2016 SIZE OF ENROLLMENT TO SIZE OF CITY SAN LUIS OBISPO RANKS LAST DUE TO CAL POLY’S HUGE ENROLLMENT IN A SMALL CITY As you can see, most cities have a reasonable ratio of residents to students, except for San Luis Obispo. If you add Cuesta Community College to Cal Poly, (a large number of these students are not local) you get one student for 1.6 residents. The same situation in Sacramento would increase its student population from 54,000 to 296,000. The same situation in Long Beach would increase it from 62,292 to 289,000. NOTE: NUMBERS ARE FROM 2014 Comparison of CSU Campuses with City Hosts Campus Population Students Ratio Residents/ Students (CP) SLO 46,377 20,186 2.2 to 1 Cuesta College 7,855 CP + Cuesta 28,041 1.6 to 1 (CP) Pomona 149,058 22,156 6.7 to 1 Long Beach 462,257 35,592 13 to 1 City College 26,700 LB + City College 62,292 7.5 to 1 Sacramento 475,122 29,000 16.3 to 1 City College 25,000 Sac + City College 54,000 8.8 to 1 Chico 86,187 16,470 5.2 to 1 Monterey 33,025 6,631 5 to 1 (Seaside) Sonoma 170,685 8,395 20.3 to 1 (Santa Rosa) A few years ago, Santa Cruz found itself in the same predicament as San Luis Obispo, and fought back. Santa Cruz eventually got the UC trustees to cap the number of students at 17,500 in 2015 (less than one student for 3 residents), build more dorms, and give compensation for extra water, transportation and police assistance. We are asking that the CSU trustees take the same responsible measures regarding Cal Poly, cap the number of students below 18,000 (one student for 2.5 residents, which is already higher than other CSUs), and build enough dorms to house at least 2/3 of the students. San Luis Obispo could return to the pleasant city it once was with the cooperation of Cal Poly and CSU Trustees. August 23, 2016 To: Chair Stevenson and Planning Commissioners From: Camille Small Re: 22 Chorro The proposed development is not one that advances needed housing. We need housing for families and for young and older professionals as well as an over 55 group who may not want maintenance costs of homes. By allowing developments like this (clearly built for students), we accomplish very little. • It gives developers and their investors a guaranteed source of income. o Students can be overcharged because they must have a place to live in order to attend college or university. o Students can and do live in groups, therefore they can be packed into units such as those proposed. • We send a message to Cal Poly that we will build for students when they have historically neglected their responsibility to do so. They have placed an incredible burden on neighborhoods and permanent residents who have the right to a peaceful existence. Residents should not be forced to move because investors buy and students rent. I do believe we need housing for young professionals. I do NOT accept that housing like this is fit for them. For the most part these people are a bit older than college-age and have jobs and responsible routines. You know, as well as the rest of us, that this is a clone of Icon at Taft/Kentucky. Are there many young professionals renting there? At this point, can we agree there is no need to ‘discuss’ that this is a “college town”. There are many college towns where the student population does not overwhelm the numbers of permanent residents. There are cities where the university has not neglected housing as Cal Poly has. Attached, please find examples. Many letters to you have aptly pointed out that there are many egregious elements to this development. I am not sure why Staff brings these problematic proposals forward. Your job is made more difficult because you have to look at literally every aspect. Solutions: Views: Say ‘no’ to 4 stories. Yes, San Luis Obispo values views; there is NO reason to obliterate. Parking spaces: Allow only 33 qualified residents to have vehicles. Others use public transit. Planners and Developers have a chance to prove their point. Roof- top deck: Noise carries to areas with permanent residents. Why burden them? Eliminate it. Set backs: What goal is accomplished by eliminating setbacks? Require them! Big bulky building with no trees? Ugly. Traffic: Perhaps developer and Staff do not know the area. We drive it frequently and there is an existing serious problem with traffic backing up on streets. Do we make things worse? Soil: Is it toxic? Should it be studied? City Needs Funds? Is it the over-reaching concern? Solution: Smaller number of employees; smaller salaries. Note that people favoring this project work for architectural firms and developers for the most part. They need to work but we need to live in this area. Please protect residents. Thank You Camille 1 Lomeli, Monique Subject: Planning Commission 22 Chorro From: Camille Small [ Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:06 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Planning Commission 22 Chorro August 23, 2016 To: Chair Stevenson and Planning Commissioners From: Camille Small Re: 22 Chorro The proposed development is not one that advances needed housing. We need housing for families and for young and older professionals as well as an over 55 group who may not want maintenance costs of homes. By allowing developments like this (clearly built for students), we accomplish very little.  It gives developers and their investors a guaranteed source of income. o Students can be overcharged because they must have a place to live in order to attend college or university. o Students can and do live in groups, therefore they can be packed into units such as those proposed.  We send a message to Cal Poly that we will build for students when they have historically neglected their responsibility to do so. They have placed an incredible burden on neighborhoods and permanent residents who have the right to a peaceful existence. Residents should not be forced to move because investors buy and students rent. I do believe we need housing for young professionals. I do NOT accept that housing like this is fit for them. For the most part these people are a bit older than college-age and have jobs and responsible routines. You know, as well as the rest of us, that this is a clone of Icon at Taft/Kentucky. Are there many young professionals renting there? At this point, can we agree there is no need to ‘discuss’ that this is a “college town”. There are many college towns where the student population does not overwhelm the numbers of permanent residents. There are cities where the university has not neglected housing as Cal Poly has. Attached, please find examples. 2 Many letters to you have aptly pointed out that there are many egregious elements to this development. I am not sure why Staff brings these problematic proposals forward. Your job is made more difficult because you have to look at literally every aspect. Solutions: Views: Say ‘no’ to 4 stories. Yes, San Luis Obispo values views; there is NO reason to obliterate. Parking spaces: Allow only 33 qualified residents to have vehicles. Others use public transit. * Planners and Developers have a chance to prove their point.* Roof- top deck: Noise carries to areas with permanent residents. Why burden them? Eliminate it. Set backs: What goal is accomplished by eliminating setbacks? Require them! Big bulky building with no trees? Ugly. Traffic: Perhaps developer and Staff do not know the area. We drive it frequently and there is an existing serious problem with traffic backing up on streets. Do we make things worse? Soil: Is it toxic? Should it be studied? City Needs Funds? Is it the overarching concern? Solution: Smaller number of employees; smaller salaries. Note that people favoring this project work for architectural firms and developers for the most part. They need to work but we need to live in this area. Please protect residents. Thank You Camille