HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/15/2020 Item 1, Yeung
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Marie Yeung <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Comments for ARCH-0095-2020 & AFFH-0096-2020
Dear City of SLO and ARC,
Thanks for giving the public an opportunity to comment on the project. The Toscano Inclusionary
Housing Project at 3065 Lucca (referred to as Housing Project from now on) is completely
surrounded by the Toscano Development. Therefore, I appreciate the design studio (Ten Over
Studio) considered the architectural features of the surrounding buildings. However, I have a few
concerns about the packet:
Factual error – in Package P.11 (item 1, Toscano Subdivision T1.3), the summary of context is
wrong. The buildings in the Toscano subdivision range from 1 to 2 stories, NOT 2 to 3 stories. The
Housing Project will be situated among other residential buildings of 1 to 2 stories, with a maximum
height of 25’-27’.
The proposed heights of the structures in the Housing project (at 29’) will be taller than any of the
surrounding residential buildings.
Reduced visibility – the population in the neighborhood has increased substantially over the last few
years but there is a lack of recreational area and park. The open trails become the only open space
where neighbors from several subdivisions and future projects - Serra Meadows, Toscano, Courtyard
at the Meadows, this Housing Project – take a walk or exercise frequently. Two buildings of the
Housing Project are in close proximity to the trail on the East. This trail becomes cramped between
these two buildings and those in Lot 150, 139 and 138 of Toscano subdivision. The claustrophobic
design will diminish the idea of having open space.
Pedestrian Entrance – the east trail is also where the Pedestrian Entrance of the Housing
Project will be. This means that between the trails on the east and west side, the east trail will
be more heavily used. Hence, proportionally more open space should be needed.
Potential Safety (perception) issue – without sufficient set-back, some tenants living on the
ground floor of Building #2 and #3 facing east may not feel safe being immediately next to the
trail. Likewise, the proximity to the balconies on the second floor may make the pedestrians
feeling uneasy.
Inconsistency within the neighborhood – I appreciate the consistent hardscape and landscape
design to make the Housing Project more beautiful and attractive. However, each building has a
footprint size 2x to 4x bigger than the surrounding residential buildings. Furthermore, all the buildings
in the Housing Project are clustered towards the east side of the project site, which makes the density
of this side significantly higher than the rest of the neighborhood. This can be alleviated by spreading
out the five buildings or reducing the footprint of each building. Since the project is asking for the
80% density bonus, we can still offer the same number of units by increasing the number of buildings
that have a smaller footprint. The current building coverage of the project is 31%. The allowable is
75%.
1
In conclusion, I support the buildings to be 2 stories or lower. I wish the ARC would consider
discussing the following:
- More set-back and spread out the five buildings to improve the open space on the east side, or
- Reduce the footprint of each building to match the neighborhood, while increasing the number of
buildings to offer the same number of units.
Sincerely,
Marie Yeung
2