HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2016 Item 20, Brown (D)Subject: FW: 22 Chorro Street s 0 CITY
From: Darren Brown [mailto:darren_ brown6@hotmail,com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 12:32 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.ore>
Subject: 22 Chorro Street
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
COUNCIL MEETING: d//Op//(D
ITEM NO,:`2aDt
In my opposition to the proposed project at 22 Chorro Street I have decided not to go into the specific points of
how this project is inconsistent with the City's adopted General Plan. Other residents have already provided
this detail to great effect, and I encourage you to read them. In short, I strongly oppose this project because it
is wrong for San Luis Obispo. To support this project, your council would be making the decision to forever
change the character of northern San Luis Obispo. By approving a project so out of scale with the site, with so
many exceptions to the General Plan and other city policies, the council would be making a clear decision that
northern San Luis Obispo will be turned into high density residential for Cal Poly students. Northern San Luis
Obispo will be our city's Isla Vista. I don't say that for hyperbole. The city would not be able to legally turn
away other similar projects in this corridor once it has approved this. The vision of this part of the city would
be forever changed.
So the question is, is this a good decision for the city to make? Arguments in support seem to focus on the need
to affordable housing and the transportation benefits of high density residential developments. This project
would provide three affordable housing units above what is required by city standards. Will the addition of a
few affordable housing units help the affordability problem of San Luis Obispo? Can the city build its way to
affordability? I would respectfully suggest the answer is no. In comparing the relative growth rates and
housing costs in some of California's coastal cities it seems apparent that higher growth rates do not translate to
more affordable housing costs.
The effectiveness of housing affordability policies aside, do we as a community want to grow more, and
denser? Some have argued that higher density residential generates fewer vehicle trips. This is often true,
however, studies that make these findings are typically done in dense urban cities such as New York, San
Francisco, and Chicago where parking is extremely difficult and traffic levels of service are poor. In other
words, people shift modes more often than not due to need or inconvenience, rather than desire. Do we plan to
institute policies that result in parking and traffic getting so bad that people shift modes? Further, there is no
evidence to suggest that residents in these high density student housing developments do not own cars. In fact,
areas around existing student housing experience very bad parking problems and often move to parking
districts.
When making your decision, please consider the ramifications of this project. Should such significant changes
to the city's vision be made outside of the General Plan planning process? The City General plan is a good
one. The city was thoughtful about where to focus housing. There was a clear emphasis for housing downtown
and in other areas that would not significant impact existing neighborhoods. Adopted City plans are also clear
that projects should provide sufficient parking, have specific setbacks, not exceeds specific heights, and have
uses consistent with their land use category. This project fails on every count. Luckily, your decision should be
a very easy one. Please make the right decision for us.
Very sincerely yours,
Darren Brown