Do you want to see more housing units in downtown San Luis Obispo?
229 registered submit feedbacks
Name not available inside Neighborhood 11
Name not available inside Neighborhood 8
Bypassing the parking requirement is not what this "low incom" community needs
Name not shown outside Neighborhoods
Absolutely opposed to eliminating or reducing density standards in downtown SLO. for following reasons:
Units of under 600 sq ft have a very limited interest - primarily for young people or senior citizens. Such units downtown are not compatible for senior citizens (a seriously underserved population) given the lack of services (especially shopping and medical) nearby.
In spite of what studies generated by the city indicate, there is a serious parking problem downtown during many peak times. Allowing these units with reduced parking requirements would exacerbate the problem.
While young people might want to live in these units, many of them require parking. Without dedicated parking (which would increase the costs) they will not be desirable. The lack of parking has been a huge problem for residents of 550 Higuera (where they are paying for off-site parking in many cases).
Units of this size are not compatible for families. They do not have enough space. Schools and shopping are not convenient. Low and middle income families are a seriously underserved populations in SLO and these units do nothing to provide for them.
Studio and one-bedroom units of this size favor affordable units which do little to support downtown businesses and vibrancy because the current mix of restaurants, bars and boutiques does not provide what the residents need or can afford.
The ordinance does nothing to insure that such units, when built, would be affordable or used for full-time and/or local residents. Many could become short-term rentals, 2nd homes, or student housing. None of these contribute to the lack of affordable housing or the health of our downtown.
Name not available inside Neighborhood 12
NO, this is not a good thing at all. Parking is already ridiculous especially on Thursday nights and Friday nights ( for events at Mission Prep). Everything I see currently being built as "affordable " housing is definitely NOT affordable to lower income workers. People like me, I'm in my 60's and most times can barely get by paycheck to paycheck. The prices of everything, especially rent is rising too high. I rarely go downtown anymore due to lack of parking close by and then having to walk too far and about being harassed by all the transients that are currently taking up space everywhere. I no longer feel safe downtown. Adding.MORE Apartments downtown is NOT the answer. Build more just not there.
Name not available inside Neighborhood 6
YES! I would particularly love to see micro units that could be purchased by current residents as a first step towards growing equity. I am at the bottom of the middle class, a paratransit driver in SLO. I am considered a "front line worker" and "essential personnel." If Diablo melts down, I go INTO the plant to rescue people. Yet I cannot afford to live in the community I serve! Yes, please help! Thank you!
Name not available inside Neighborhood 6
Housing in the downtown core could be great... if there were the services and facilities to support it.
My big questions are:
What fair and effective strategies will the city facilitate to protect surrounding neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high intensity uses? This was a general plan priority in the past.
What is the city doing to encourage and ensure the availability of basic essentials for those living downtown, in order to make reducing reliance on cars realistic?
In the past, people living in downtown SLO had access to things that regular people need every day. The heart of downtown had a grocery store (where Mountain Air and other businesses are currently), a meat market, an affordable bakery, another smaller grocery, a "dime store", department stores, and even a hardware store. These shops allowed residents to meet their daily needs. Downtown SLO no longer offers the things people need for daily life.
Use of buses and bikes to get essentials is time consuming, and makes it difficult to get anything more than a shopping bag or two home, especially if you want frozen foods frozen. Uber and Lyft get expensive. How many of our city leaders are willing to live without cars?
The sad truth is, most people are reliant on cars. Expecting the residents of up to 500 new units to live alone (expensive!) or without cars is unrealistic. Expecting people to pay for off-site parking is unrealistic, unless landlords are required to provide a spot (on-site or paid off-site) for tenants.
In Europe, I’ve gone months without a car. Public transportation is plentiful, fast, and efficient. There are plenty of small food markets where people can pick up groceries on the walk home. Downtown SLO isn’t like this.
They will have cars. So where will they park? Most likely, on the streets of adjacent neighborhoods, further affecting residents of our historical neighborhoods, where parking is already at a premium due to downtown employees parking there. This need for parking doesn't stop at 5pm, since many downtown businesses are staffed late into the night.
Historical homes don’t always have adequate off-street parking, due to changes to transportation modes since the homes were built. This means many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods rely on street parking. Adding up to 500 housing units in the downtown core will affect residents in our historical neighborhoods.
Try carrying your items from Costco or the home improvement store a few blocks from the nearest parking spot. (Or on the bus or a bike, if you live in the downtown core.)
Residential parking districts aren't a solution. They impede the rights of residents to host people in their homes for things such as book clubs, celebrations, and volunteer meetings.
Why should homeowners pay the price for increased density and decreased parking requirements, when developers and landlords are the ones benefiting?
I’m looking forward to answers to my questions. I understand the importance of providing more housing. We need it. But we need to prepare for it in ways that are realistic and will enhance, rather than degrade, resident experiences.
Name not available inside Neighborhood 7
While I am grateful to already have a convenient SLO Transit bus route to my job downtown, I would prefer to live closer to work and have all the amenities that downtown has to offer. I don't own a car and don't feel comfortable biking or walking the entire distance from my current home. As a young professional, 600 square feet would be plenty of space for me to live comfortably. Downtown is easily walkable, and limiting parking would hopefully convince people to find alternate routes into town, and increase walkability further. I would ultimately like the City to prioritize people over parking.
Chuck Slem inside Neighborhood 1
Deja vu, all over again?
A few years ago, when it was obvious that two high density projects at the intersection of Foothill and Chorro did not live up to the spirit of earlier general plan revisions, citizen protests to the city council were met with claims that “our hands are tied.” This was the result of housing density decisions made by the past city councils, plus state initiatives to jack up available housing, and then smart out-of-town developers who were able to apply the ‘affordability’ card to ignore good community and neighborhood planning principles.
Lesson learned.
The “affordability card” is off the table this time, but changing density and parking requirements still make it vulnerable to exploitation. Having now looked at the document links provided by the online city survey, I am convinced that there are no protections in this proposal that will protect the community from opportunistic out-of-town developers combined with state government initiatives that will promote projects we didn’t really have in mind and are not in our community’s best interest.
While it is our responsibility to advance housing solutions for the wide range of community residents, it should not be accomplished by destroying the very characteristics of the community that make it so desirable. The proposal in its present state does not achieve this balanced goal.
Why lift density restrictions when we know that the current market demands and profit motives will not really make “affordability” a key part of any realized project (unless cramming multiple student roommates into these tiny spaces is desirable)?
The proposed plan opens this key part of the community to developers whose understandable profit motives will not automatically make downtown Slo a more desirable to live. The lifting of parking space requirements alone only exacerbate the problem many who live downtown already face.
The protection of our downtown as a valuable resource (tourism, community activities, arts & culture, vibrant economic driver, quality of life, etc), should be paramount.
Unless there are strict safeguards, we don’t have to be in a rush about opening the downtown core to the whims of developers as there are plenty of housing developments in progress all over the city that are already straining the city’s infrastructure and resources.
Keeping control over the downtown core development is an opportunity for careful planning and good public-private partnerships to create a downtown core that does provide a range of housing for the wide range of people who make up the community while enhancing the character of a vibrant downtown core.
Name not available inside Neighborhood 7
I feel that homelessness and parking should be a priority instead of adding to the density of downtown. As someone previously mentioned many small homes are now used for business, why was that allowed to happen? It seems that all of the many building projects recently started have very few “affordable” units despite being sold as addressing the need for housing. In addition the discussion of additional housing rarely includes its impact on current and future water supplies.
Name not available inside Neighborhood 8
I overall support this plan as a step in the right direction, however I fear it may not be enough. The City should do more to eliminate regulations that prevent builders from building. SLO needs more housing period, regardless of new unit affordability - more units is always better, and encouraging multi family housing is essential to achieving the density needed to support an active Transit community. Maybe I won't be able to afford living right in downtown, but thats ok since it will create new availability elsewhere. I would encourage Council to go further. Allow two-bed housing in this plan, accordingly allow 1000sqft, allow more housing to be exempt from well meaning but supply constricting policy, and most importantly eliminate the sunset clause.
We don’t need anymore housing!!! I have lived here since 2005. It is not the small town it used to be; too big for the infrastructure and schools. I am a local teacher and I can’t afford to live here. Please stop the growth!!!