HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/4/2023 Item 4a, Oren
Eric P Oren <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Architectural review committee meeting; 12/4/23 (ARC H-0110-2023); 460 Pacific St.
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
My wife and I live at 474 Pacific St. We have observed the traffic and parking on
Pacific St. over the years and strongly believe this project poses a significant health
and safety hazard.
This project proposes a 100% vehicular parking reduction. According to the
project proponent, zoning regulations require 11 parking spaces on site per the "waiver
description". Assuming this to be accurate (i.e. assuming that regulations do not
actually require more than 11 parking spaces), any casual observation of this area will
reveal that there is a severe parking problem in this area. For example, as you may
know, the Downtown Terrace Apartments at 550 Higuera St. is at the same end of
town as the project proposed at 460 Pacific St. The Downtown Terrace Apartments is
a “60-unit community" (according to their website) which does not provide parking for
its tenants. Their website states under the heading "PARKING": "please be advised
that there is NO PARKING available at this property. Residents and guests must find
alternative parking options off-site." I have personally observed that Pacific Street
regularly has residents of the Downtown Terrace complex park their cars on Pacific
Street (sometimes for multiple days without moving them) because of the extreme lack
of parking on Higuera and Marsh streets etc. There are also people who work
downtown who park on this particular block of Pacific Street (between Beach Street
and Carmel Street) and walk into town, leaving their cars parked on Pacific for the
entire day.
In short, this project is overlooking parking problem that will made significantly
worse as a result of this 10-unit multifamily housing development. Further, the project
documents provided in advance of this hearing do not include a traffic study. At a
minimum, a traffic study should have been performed and should be required for this
project. The "categorical exemption" claim for this project is questionable without any
traffic study or other environmental analysis or study. The requirements of 14 CCR
§15332 have not been met to claim a Class 32 in-fill exemption. Specifically,
subsection (d) of 14 CCR §15332 requires that "approval of the project would not result
in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality." An
environmental analysis is needed and should be required. In the absence of a traffic
study and environmental impact study, there is no way to determine whether there is
any "specific adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment". The
1
project proponent would like the community to assume-- without any supporting
information-- that there is no such adverse impact of effect. In short, this project is
subject to a CEQA challenge.
Pacific Street is a narrow street which is usually lined with cars parked on the
street. There is no bike lane on Pacific-- nor is there room for a bike lane while cars are
parked on the street. Over the past several years it appears that the traffic on Pacific
has increased. At certain times there is an even greater congestion and parking
problem--the Thursday evening Farmer’s Market is an event that almost always fills
Pacific Street with cars of people attending that event. Very often, backing out of our
driveway is precarious and dangerous because cars park right up to the edge of where
our driveway begins, blocking our view of oncoming traffic while we back out of our
driveway. Very often there is no room to place our trash containers out on the street
because cars are parked to the edge of our driveway, requiring that we place the
containers in front of (blocking) the driveway. I have also observed our neighbors
circling our block looking for a place to park.
The “trip reduction plan” within the applicant's "Alternate Parking Summary" for
this project applicant is a completely unrealistic and unsupportable attempt to address
a serious parking problem. In this regard, I would suggest obtaining data/information as
to whether the occupants of Downtown Terrace have cars, and whether similar
proposals (i.e. similar to the proposals made by the applicant in this matter) were made
for that project. I know several tenants of the Downtown Terrace--they own cars that
are frequently parked on Pacific Street if there is any room available, otherwise they
park anywhere they can. The “information/tenant incentives” proposed on behalf of the
applicant is not a reasonable solution to a parking problem which this project will
create. The project applicant proposes subsidizing the first month of a bus pass use for
occupants (I submit that there is no data that can be provided that would support a
claim that this will make any difference to minimize the need for an occupant to have a
vehicle. Also, providing a “bulletin board” which would be “posted in the entry/mail area
with information regarding rideshare/carpool/vanpool opportunities and bicycle maps
is, again, something which cannot be shown to be anything other than unrealistic
‘window dressing’ for significant vehicle traffic and parking problem that this project will
create. Finally, the same holds true for the applicant’s offer of $100 per quarter if a
resident with a car uses the residential overnight DROP PROX program (the cost per
quarter is $375 so the occupant would have to pay $275 per quarter to use this
program). Rather than pay $275 per quarter, the incentive for anyone who has a car
will be to avoid the $275/quarter cost and find a parking space on the street (especially
since the parking structures that participate in the DROP program are not close to 460
Pacific St., i.e. the Marsh Street parking structure and the Palm Street parking
structure. In addition, there are limited parking stalls available for this DROP program
and no information has been provided as to the current number of stalls which have
been permitted by the City. The project applicant should provide detailed information
as to the availability of parking stalls, and whether the DROP program is being utilized
2
by residents of other downtown housing. Obviously, if residents of downtown housing
are not using the overnight parking DROP program, it does not support a claim that it
would, in any way, be an incentive for any tenant of this project to park their car in one
of the participating garages. The reasonable assumption to make when reviewing this
project is that there will be at least 10 cars associated with the tenants of this project.
The idea that tenants will be people that do not own vehicles nor wish to own vehicles
is not only speculation but contrary to common knowledge and common sense.
It makes no sense to try to provide “much-needed housing near San Luis Obispo’s
downtown core” while creating another, perhaps more significant health and safety
problem.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important issue.
Eric Oren
Eric P. Oren
Attorney
DROPPhone: (559) 224-5900 (Fresno)
Phone: (661) 401-7621 (Bakersfield)
Fax: (559) 224-5905
Email: epo@ericorenlaw.com
Law Offices of Eric P. Oren, Inc.
516 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 200
Fresno, California 93704
website: www.ericorenlaw.com
This electronic mail communication may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client communications and/or attorney
work product. If you have received this communication in error or are not the intended recipient, please delete the
communication without using, copying or otherwise disseminating it. Please notify the sender that you received this message
in error.
If you are a potential client, the information you disclose to us by email will be kept in strict confidence and will be protected
to the full extent of the law. Please be advised, however, Eric P. Oren, Inc. and its employees do not represent you until you
have signed a retainer agreement with the firm. Until that time, you are responsible for any statutes of limitations or other
deadlines for your case or potential case.
3