HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/15/2019 Item 9, Smith
From:carolyn smith <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:January 15, 2019 Council Meeting - Agenda Item #9 - 790 Foothill
Mayor Harmon and Council Members:
Residents continue to be dismayed by the very large student housing projects being approved adjacent to
residential neighborhoods, blocking the views of our local mountains which has been a protected and
treasured feature of our city. This project blocks the public's view of Bishop Peak and is just another
massive high priced student dorm type complex, similar to the monolithic project at 22 Chorro, the Icon
Project at Taft and Kentucky, and the soon to be completed 71 Palomar project--all adjacent to residential
neighborhoods. These student projects exacerbate neighborhood disruptions, that are already occurring in
our once-family neighborhoods in the northern area of the city, with noise, high traffic volume, and
severely impacted parking.
The design of this project, with its large 2 bedroom units, is similar to the other projects that has resulted
in the division of those large bedrooms into 4 bedrooms, doubling the expected occupancy. The Icon
project became a code enforcement problem because of this underhanded division which could easily be
done with this project. The parking allocation for this project is already minimized by reduction incentives,
but when you add the division of the large two bedroom units, the unexpected increased parking need will
overwhelm nearby neighborhoods and commercial areas. This will be made even worse if the owner
charges a monthly fee for on-site parking, as is the practice at other similar projects. Additional parking
enforcement efforts will be needed and our city certainly doesn't need additional enforcement issues.
Furthermore, the increased density from dividing the bedrooms will increase traffic volumes, making any
traffic study, based on the intended density, grossly under estimated. Traffic volume increases will result
in more vehicle and pedestrian collisions, jeopardizing the safety of residents and visitors.
To prevent these problems, bedroom sizes should be reduced which could have the added benefit of
reducing the massiveness and height of the project (protecting the view shed) and perhaps allowing for a
slight increase in size of some of the lower income studio apartments. This would then conform with our
2014-2019 General Plan Housing Element which states (under Goal 4--Mixed-Income Housing, Policy 4.2)
that “affordable units should be comparable in size, appearance and basic quality to market-rate units.”
Many are legitimately questioning the affordability of this project since in the other similar projects
recently built, the market rate units are renting for $1,200.00+ per bed and/or person, definitely not
affordable for our workforce. I've attended numerous meetings where working families have appealed to
the council to approve workforce housing that they can afford to rent and/or purchase. This project
certainly doesn't fulfill those needs. The lower income units planned for this project are too small for a
family, which means lower income families are squeezed out of living here. The types of affordable
housing envisioned by many working in this city has never been high-rent student-dorm units like this
project provides. They hoped for housing where working individuals and families can live in a peaceful,
safe environment. This project could be modified to accommodate families with amenities added that
could be enjoyed by all. This would be a step in the right direction to providing what council has been
asked to do by many working families.
I have heard some make the claim that this project will open up houses for families in single family
neighborhoods when students move into this project. I question if there is actually any proof of this claim
or if this is just conjecture, because most students I've spoken to over the years say they prefer to live in
single-family homes that accommodate the type of lifestyle they enjoy the most (safe space for their
bikes, cars, surfboards, beer pong tables, and the ability to have numerous guests over and/or to have
parties, backyard BBQ's, etc.). This type of project does not allow for those desirable benefits. It's also
1
more expensive to live in this type of project than renting a room in a house which costs several hundred
dollars less per month. Perhaps that's why 22 Chorro is having a hard time filling its units.
Consequently, please grant the appeal of this project and send it back for further study and revision to (1)
reduce the size of the bedrooms in the 2-bedroom units to avoid alteration that would increase density;
(2) reduce its mass and height to preserve our view shed; (3) provide more parking spaces for the
project; (4) require a revised traffic study after 22 Chorro is fully occupied; and finally (5) be bold and
require that this project be re-designed to provide affordable rental housing for all with amenities for our
workforce families, not just the student population.
Thank you for your consideration and service.
Carolyn Smith, SLO Resident
2