Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Schmidt)1 Lomeli, Monique Subject:Planning Commission Item 1 From: Richard Schmidt [    Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 5:23 PM  To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>  Subject: Planning Commission Item 1  The future state of the Foothill-Chorro intersection if dreadful proposed parking access for 22 Chorro proceeds! Meeting: PC 08-24-2016 Item 1 Received By: Community Development Department 08-24-2016 Lomeli, Monique Subject: Planning Commission comment 22 Chorro From: Richard Schmidt [ Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 11:08 AM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.ore> Cc: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.or ;> Subject: Planning Commission comment 22 Chorro Dear Planning Commissioners, Please see the attached pdf document for comments on 22 Chorro. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Richard Schmidt RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 22 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Meeting: - a q Item: Aug. 22, 2016 Re: 22 Chorro Dear Planning Commission Members, I continue to be disappointed at the quality of staff reports for projects like this. The reports are completely uncritical, and seem merely to shill for a project rather than provide the sort of critical issues analysis I saw in every single staff report during the 8 years I was on your commission. It is a shame staff reports no longer make any effort to protect public interests and values, as opposed to what they do seek to protect, the private interests of applicants. So, these comments are intended to fill a part of what's missing. • This project is abusive, in its uses, configuration, and impacts to the adjacent single family neighborhood. Others have commented on the inappropriateness of having a four-story building abut a single family residence — something long-standing city policies and planning practices would find improper, by the way — so I'll mention that in passing and move on to other issues. • This project as configured and proposed violates the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. In specific, it blocks protected views from a designated scenic roadway. The operant section of the COSE that would be violated is Policy 9.2.1: 9.2.1. Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 11 are designated as scenic roadways. A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. First, in Figure 11, Foothill is a designated scenic roadway. It is shown in Figure 11 with a solid yellow line. That is because the entire length of this major arterial offers a continuously shifting panorama of major iconic views, and it was the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council in adopting this designation to protect these views in perpetuity. Second, views at this location that would be blocked include • The iconic view of San Luis Mountain to pedestrians and vehicles westbound on Foothill from Santa Rosa to Chorro. • The same view from the College Square Shopping Center on the north side of Foothill. • The iconic views of the Santa Lucias for eastbound Foothill pedestrians and vehicles from west of Broad to east of Chorro. • Views of the Santa Lucias and Edna Valley hills for North Chorro southbound pedestrians and vehicles. Third, these views are highly valued by residents — protecting them rated high among items on the LUCE resident survey — and make San Luis Obispo the place it is. We are not EI Segundo, home of the applicant. Fourth, the save -the -views directive in the LOSE isn't one that can be "interpreted" away by staff or commissioners. It is not a discretionary directive, but is mandatory, the operant words being "shall not:" "Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views." (The only way I can see staff can argue this mandatory prohibition doesn't apply, especially now that view blockage has been pointed out by several commentators, is to put up story poles to prove the views this project will clearly obstruct will not be obstructed. Why aren't story poles routine practice in the first place?) Fifth, this project as proposed does both of the prohibited acts: it "walls off" the scenic roadway by having zero setback, and it blocks views (plural). Sixth, it is hard to imagine a proposed building for this site that would do more damage to protected views. View protection simply hasn't been something designers bothered to deal with. They could, however, do much better with a less bulky building. The bulk of this building needs to be reduced to a level where it does not violate Policy 9.2.1. - The uses in this project are inappropriate for the zoning and this prime commercial location. The SF overlay zoning designation was never intended to change the nature of the underlying commercial zoning, but to add some focus to encourage housing as a secondary, not primary, use. So an apartment house at this location, a primary residential use, on this commercially -zoned land in a dense district where commercial zoning is limited, is inappropriate. I call it an apartment house because that is what it is. There's a single small token commercial space thrown in as a sop to the zoning, but otherwise it's about nothing but student apartments. The intent of the SF overlay was never to turn commercial property along Foothill into residential property. If that were the city's intent, the land would simply have been rezoned residential. This property is commercial, and should be required to be used as such. This project's resulting land use problem is evident looking at the Foothill frontage, which the site's zoning would envision as being all commercial. Along the Foothill frontage, however, only one quarter is commercial, the other three-quarters is apartment house. 75% of ground floor main frontage uses not consistent with the intent of the underlying zoning is inappropriate, and if permitted constitutes poor planning. The project needs to be completely redesigned to meet the intent of the zoning and SF overlay, by making it a ground floor commercial project along the entire Foothill frontage, with a secondary housing component upstairs. • The project as proposed ignores the need for strong urban design along Foothill. Foothill is desired to be a vibrant pedestrian corridor. On the north side at present a parking lot separates the street sidewalk from the shops, meaning pedestrians are sandwiched between heavy traffic and parked cars, creating the sort of let's -get -out -of - here no -man's land Jan Gehl once described to me as a place "where only derelicts would choose to linger." The south side sidewalk along Foothill is, and needs to remain, more pedestrian oriented. In order for it to be a vibrant pedestrian place, this street's sidewalk must be lined with pedestrian attractions, both visual and use -attractant. The proposed building actually shuts itself off from the vibrancy of Foothill pedestrianism. Devoting three- quarters of the project's frontage to private apartment functions creates public/pedestrian dead space, which destroys any chance of vibrancy along these sidewalks. This is another reason why essentially 100% of the Foothill frontage needs to be commercial space that contributes to sidewalk vibrance • Adverse traffic impacts aren't discussed in the staff report. They will be severe and widespread. The entry to the parking, on Chorro, will snarl traffic on both Chorro and Foothill, and will make it next to impossible for vehicles to access and exit from the Starbucks/Jamba Juice parking lot across Chorro. Picture how this will work. Cars from Foothill heading to the site's parking will turn south on Chorro, then will have to wait to turn left into the parking. Chorro's a busy street. There will almost always be a wait. Northbound traffic on Chorro stopped for the ridiculously -timed Foothill traffic signal — meaning it's a long, long wait — frequently back up past the point of entry for the project's parking. That means cars waiting to turn left into the parking will wait, and wait, and wait, while traffic backs up behind them, onto Foothill and into the Chorro/Foothill intersection, causing that intersection to malfunction, meaning the wait will get even longer as the traffic snarl eventually gets cleared through several successive traffic signal sequences. What a mess! Collateral damage from this is more and more cars trying to avoid the intersection by cutting across Murray and Meinecke, to Broad (soon to be a bike boulevard — so why would you want to divert more traffic onto it?), then out Ramona (a bike route also). And we can expect the same traffic pattern in reverse as cars eastbound on Foothill seek to avoid the frequently -snarled Chorro intersection. This project's malfunctioning parking arrangement will impact far -removed neighborhoods with increased traffic, and impinge on bike planning efforts as well. Is that really the sort of city you seek to create? Entry to the project's parking on Chorro is unworkable. The entry should be from Foothill. - Parking reductions proposed are absurd, and highly irresponsible on the part of the city. It behooves us to understand why there are parking requirements for apartments in the first place. It is so parking impacts of developments like this one are contained on site, and not shoved off onto others who bear no responsibility for them. So, the idea is to provide sufficient parking to take care of actual parking needs. In this instance, staff has piled one theory -based parking reduction rationalization atop another atop still another to a point where the "required" parking becomes absurdly unrealistic. These various reductions were never intended to be compounded in this manner. Each was intended to respond to something qto specific and justifiable. Adding them together makes no sense. And doing so has staff talking out of both sides of its mouth simultaneously and looking pretty silly. For example, we're told the kids who live here will ride their bikes or take the bus to school, so somehow, though it's not clear how, that means less parking is needed. But we can also allow a "mixed-use" parking reduction since during "business hours" residents will have driven their cars to school and there will be extra spaces! (This ignores the fact business hours could be till 11 p.m.) Folks, you can't have it both ways. The argument on its face is absurd, since if they're biking or bussing to school, their cars will stay home all day, which means the mixed-use reduction's rationalization is invalid. Since there's no other place for project residents to park than on site or in surrounding single family neighborhoods, you need to provide adequate parking on site. How many spaces is that? I can tell you from years of arranging student field trips and asking "Who doesn't have a car," upwards of 90% of students DO have cars, even if they don't use them every day. That means you need to provide parking on site for 90% of occupants. How many occupants will there be? 95 is a reasonable number. Note the layout of the "2 -bedroom" apartments with their oddly -shaped "bedrooms" with double doors. These will be subdivided each into two bedrooms, so these are actually intended as four- bedroom apartments. 23 of these means 91 occupants. (If you don't understand this bedroom subdivision business, visit iconslo.com, a project by the same architect, where the webpage shows similar "bedrooms" with double doors subdivided with movable partitions, so each bed can rent for $1000 per month, or $4000 per two-bedroom apartment! This is NOT affordable housing! At Icon, the developer put in stud -wall partitions within the "bedrooms" without a permit, and after being reported by an observer, it is rumored the city red -tagged the project. Folks, this is what you're dealing with here. A whole lot more bedrooms than the applicant admits.) (Note also the economically exploitative fact of the developer's providing too little parking — he can charge extra for the "privilege" of on-site parking.) So, if there are 95 occupants, minimally "adequate" parking would be about 86 spaces instead of the woefully inadequate 33 proposed. - Health impacts aren't discussed in the staff report. Actual progressive places increasingly use health impact assessment analysis for projects such as this. Had one been done for this project, it would have revealed problems. First, having the study/sleeping quarters of 68 young people facing Foothill with zereo setback presents health issues. It is well known in healthy -design quarters and in the medical literature that constant exposure to traffic noise has adverse and potentially permanent adverse cardio -vascular effects. A zero setback magnifies the noise exposure to the 34 bedrooms facing Foothill. Why would a good city approve designs known to have harmful cardio -vascular impacts? Having rooms most used facing a major noisy artery like this is not well-planned housing. Furthermore, this location has intensely polluted air from all the traffic — not just car exhaust, but diesel from the fact Foothill is a major truck and bus route. Such air pollution harms the respiratory and cardio -vascular systems, often irreparably, and breathing diesel emissions can cause sudden fatal reactions even in the young. One assumes "mitigation" for the obvious fact window ventilation will not work for these bedrooms will be an air conditioned building. This, in turn, means the building, which if designed intelligently and located in a better location would need no air conditioning, becomes an unnecessary energy guzzler, a veritable energy dinosaur built just before California residential work goes net zero energy in 2020. This building thus becomes an energy albatross around the city's neck as we attempt to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions to save what's left of our planet's health. Second, the parking garage is unsafe. It will become a crime magnet — muggings, rapes, hopefully nothing worse. It is completely isolated, out of view, and will be a constant security problem. Third, like the building, the parking garage will need mechanical ventilation. More energy guzzling unnecessary with a better design. More planet -destroying emissions. Fourth, there is also the question where the stinky auto emissions vented from the garage will be released. It would be very simple, and very unethical, to do so at ground level near the adjacent single family house, thus poisoning its occupants. The commission must see this is not done. There are additional health issues, but this gives a hint about what's not being talked about that should be talked about as negatives for this proposal. • Noise. The staff report is silent about noise, especially as it impacts adjacent single family areas. First, noise reflection from the hard tall walls along Chorro will be significant. These will concentrate and reflect traffic noise, which now spreads in all directions, directly back into the single family neighborhoods along Chorro, Rougeot, and the back yards along Broad. This is completely unnecessary. A lower building would reflect less, but even a relatively tall building could mitigate its noise reflecton. For example, requiring the same 20 -foot setback along Chorro as for the adjacent R-1 properties, and requiring the dense planting of relatively tall sound -absorbent trees in that setback, would help deaden the reflection of noise. This should be a required mitigation. Second, mechanical noise from the building's mechanical systems (air conditioning, garage ventilation, car elevators, etc.) can be very annoying to surrounding residents, who should not have to put up with it. This noise can travel long distances — the refrigeration at the former Albertson's, for example, can be heard two blocks away. Somehow, all such noise must be contained on site and not spewed into the commons. Third, roof party decks are inappropriate adjoining a single family neighborhood. The deck on Chorro could hardly be more inappropriately sited. Can you imagine kids whooping it up out there, their friends driving by tooting their horns, the yelling back and forth from deck to car, etc.? This is reality in student housing, folks. Either the deck needs to be relocated, or firm conditions must be set on the time and nature of its use. Don't throw this one onto the neighbors. Fourth, the clanging noisy car elevators in the garage, all the other activity in the garage with sound reverberating off its hard surfaces, the garage opening pointing directly at the house next door! This isn't OK. • Car elevators. This is so daft it's hardly worth commenting on. Self -serve noisy, clangy machines subject to breakdown for raising and lowering cars in order to claim the place has adequate parking when it doesn't? The project needs to be scaled down to where a user-friendly parking lot can be built to accommodate all of its needs. Conclusion. Please send this back to the drawing board. A proper project for this site should be commercial, possibly with a secondary residential component. The number of parking spaces on site must be realistic to accommodate the level of need for all uses without any fudging. Any project must adhere to COSE Policy 9.2.1. Thank you. Richard Schmidt