HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2018 Item 1, Smith
Goodwin, Heather
From:carolyn smith <cjsmith_107@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Planning Commission Meeting, July 25, 2018 - Item #1 - 790 Foothill
Chair Fowler and Commissioners:
There is hardly a day that goes by that I don't hear from resident friends, some new--some long-term,
about what is happening in SLO with regard to all the tall, out of place projects being approved and
built, negatively changing our treasured quaint city. 22 Chorro has been a real shock to many, who
weren't aware and are upset that this monstrosity was approved. Now seeing its massiveness, many
residents, as well as tourists have commented how it doesn't fit in with our city's long-established
character, and how it, among other tall buildings being erected downtown and all over the city,
destroys the very unique charm that has made our city different than other cities and such a desirable
place to live. I also hear residents lamenting about how it's a travesty that these new high-rise
buildings are blocking the views of the mountains and peaks that our city leaders have always
prioritized as most important to protect in its General Plan and guidelines.
Now this developer, having gotten away with destroying the views on one side of Foothill, wants to
build another tall, similar, out of place, project with expensive rental units which will block scenic
views of our mountains and peaks on the other side of Foothill. Is this the goal our previous leaders,
who established our General Plan and development guidelines, were trying to accomplish? Is this
what those who live in SLO truly desire? Or is this what out of town developers are promoting in
order to make large profits, exploiting our city while manipulating the system, and destroying our long-
term protected character? The future direction of our city depends upon the protections that have
historically been put into place and if you feel you are being intimidated by the threat of a lawsuit by
the developer to ignore these protections, I ask you to resist.
Concerned residents are being told that it's okay to ignore these protections for the sake of affordable
workforce housing. However, most certainly this project does not provide any affordable workforce
housing. In fact, this project turns its back on our workforce families. Not only are the studio
apartments of insufficient size for a family of more than 2 to comfortably reside, but the other high
priced rental units in the project will create noise disturbances and safety concerns for families from
high student density--much higher than claimed by this developer. The bedrooms will be divided, as
done by the owner of the Icon Project, allowing for a much higher density of students in this project
than the plan reflects. Continuing to build so-called affordable studios in a student rental project
such as this, fails to meet the city's goal of providing affordable workforce housing for our working
families. This project is a student dorm and belongs on campus, not in the city. In addition, the claim
that students will vacate single family homes in neighborhoods to live in this project, making those
homes available for families, is completely unsubstantiated. As Cal Poly's enrollment continues to
increase, any single-family rental home in a neighborhood vacated to live in this project will just be
filled by more students who are already waiting in line.
The Multimodal Transportation Impact Study's conclusion on this project, that there will be no
significant traffic and parking impacts, is not supported by any real hard evidence. There is no proof
whatsoever that students residing in this project will not own a vehicle. There is no prohibition of a
tenant having a vehicle, therefore, it's reasonable to consider that a vast majority of these tenants will
1
have a car. Experience should demonstrate that having cars while attending Cal Poly is important to
many students so they can go home to visit family, go to the beach, shop at box stores, etc. Even
when Cal Poly instructed its freshmen students not to bring their cars to the city this past year, many
many still did and they parked (stored) those vehicles in many neighborhoods that don't have a
parking district. This created more traffic and parking problems in neighborhoods that previously
didn't have traffic/parking problems. Consequently, this Study is based on unrealistic,
unsubstantiated expectations. The Study further fails to report how traffic will be increased when the
bedrooms in this project are subdivided allowing for a much higher density. It also fails to report how
the nearby projects of 71 Palomar and 22 Chorro, with the equal opportunity to double their
occupancy, will have a cumulative affect on the traffic safety of this area of the city. Furthermore, this
Study's information is outdated and was most likely skewed by commercial construction in the area,
which caused temporary reduced traffic, at the time the traffic information was collected.
Therefore, a more recent and realistic in depth traffic study should be required, when Cal Poly is in
session, before you determine whether or not this project will be detrimental to health and safety. It
will be too late once this project is built and occupied and it's discovered the traffic study was
insufficient, as what occurred when the traffic study for Costco was made. That study was 30% short
of the actual traffic from that project which subsequently, and to this day, led to significant dangerous
traffic congestion and worse air quality deterioration than expected in the southern part of the city.
Additionally, the above-mentioned nearby projects are also grossly under parked and the overflow
parking from all three of these projects will overwhelm nearby neighborhoods, and most likely nearby
commercial parking lots, with their tenants storing their vehicles that can't be parked at the sites in
which they live. Therefore, a thorough parking management study should be required, which should
include the other projects' realistic parking impacts. Forcing nearby neighborhoods to form parking
districts because of these grossly under parked projects is certainly unfair to existing residents and
should not be the answer to poor planning.
Please do the right thing here and demand a more in depth traffic and parking management study to
assure that this project will not be a danger to residents' health and safety. Also, please insist upon
the application of our General Plan and Community Design Guidelines with regard to preserving the
scenic views along the designated Foothill scenic corridor.
There are no do-overs here. Once the views are gone, the traffic becomes extremely dangerous from
this project, and neighborhoods are inundated from the parking (storing) of vehicles from the tenants
living in this project, you can't go back and tear it down. Please make your decisions based on
realistic accurate data, not wishful thinking, and please preserve the views of our unique mountains
and peaks. We all have to live here with the impacts from this project, long after this developer picks
up his money bags and walks home. We are counting on you to preserve what our city leaders have
historically worked long and hard to protect and what our residents treasure.
Thank you for your consideration and service.
Carolyn Smith
SLO City Resident
2