HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Rowley)Meeting: 1 [fig- I D- lri.p
iii
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
August 10, 2016
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUG 0 9 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Item 1, Amend Allowable Uses, Include 30% Parking Reduction at 2950 Broad Street
Dear Commissioners,
Parking reductions, regardless of where they are, just shift the parking elsewhere. We ask that
you not allow the requested parking reduction. In addition, we ask that you add a condition
requiring that the current width and depth of the spaces, and the back -out distance behind the
spaces, be retained.
Allowing parking reductions in the various developments has created the situation where people
who are going one place park their car in another place. This is true for the new and newer
residential, mixed-use and commercial developments. It is time to put parking spaces where
they are needed and not rely on surrounding uses to accommodate the parking needs of others.
A survey of our members' use and opinions about the various shopping centers listed on Page 4
of the Staff Report produced the following results: Of the centers listed, only in the Laguna
Village Shopping Center, Crossroads Center and this center is it fairly easy to find a parking space
and have it be of sufficient size to preclude getting dings and dents from large cars and trucks
parked in adjacent spaces. In the other centers listed, locating an available space is difficult and
finding damage to your vehicle is not uncommon - and annotating "compact" in a parking space
does not preclude large vehicles from parking there.
In addition, the cumulative effects of reduced or insufficient parking in residential, mixed-use and
commercial projects have negatively affected residential neighborhoods in many parts of San
Luis Obispo, including this one. This is unconscionable and unnecessary.
Please note that the table on page 14, Parking Calculations by Use, includes this footnote:
"The majority of the aforementioned businesses represent long-term tenancy and were
established under a previous ordinance parking calculations. Current parking re uirements have
been utilized for the purposes of creating this table and may not necessarily reflect the actual
employee density." (emphasis added) In other words, this table is not an actual picture of
current parking needs, it is just a sample.
In summary, there should be no parking reduction, especially with the restaurant and other
added uses contemplated - all with likely similar hours of operation. In addition, there should be
no change to the current size of the parking spaces or back -out space provided. Therefore, we
request you take the actions requested in our first paragraph.
1
Thank you for your time and your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN