HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Hunter)Lomeli, Monique
Subject: PC communication - 22 Chorro Street
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
II,,,,
-----Original Message----- 1111eetir�g; � ��"a� � �lli AUG 2.2 2016
From: John Logan Hunter [ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 3:42 PM Item:
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: PC communication - 22 Chorro Street
Members of the Planning Commission,
It is no secret that our City faces a housing shortage. I trust that you, the members of the Planning Commission, are not
blinded by this need when evaluating the suitability of the various proposals that come before your body. The proposed
project at 22 Chorro Street is one that requires careful consideration and warrants significant, and perhaps
insurmountable, criticism.
Loren Riehl, the project's developer, has presented some utopian vision where his dozens of residents will live in unity
with public transportation, where indoor bicycle storage and an improved bus stop will attract residents who have no
need for a car. The simple reality is that most students and young professionals, no doubt the target of a development
of this sort, own and need cars. In a development with 50 bedrooms, that will probably house at least 75 individuals, and
a commercial space that will require parking for employees and customers, the plan calls for only 33 parking spots. This
will require that residents, visitors, customers, and employees illegally park in adjacent businesses or down Chorro St.
and its' various side -streets. This impact to the neighborhood cannot be acceptable. As designed, this development
cannot function without undue impact to its' neighbors and it should not be approved.
I am concerned with how the developer was able to submit a plan with such inadequate parking. It appears he took
advantage of reductions by providing for additional bike parking and by taking advantage of a stipulation in the Zoning
Regulations that allows for a reduction in parking if two separate uses share parking areas. The latter is predicated on a
finding that the peak parking needs of the two uses do not coincide. In a development so obviously suited to students
and young professionals, who often have a wide variety of work or school schedules, it is difficult for me to accept that
this finding will in fact be the case. What will be the business hours of the tenant in this development's commercial
space? What will they need to be to meet the requirement that peak parking demand for customers does not match
with peak parking demand for students and young professionals, and their notoriously irregular schedules? Regarding
the first means to achieve a parking reduction, additional bicycle parking will do little to decrease the parking demands
of this development's residents, visitors, employees, and customers.
Riehl and I discussed my concerns with his inadequate parking plan. He pointed to market forces, which he said would
push those who need a car away from becoming his tenants. Adjacent businesses will have the right to tow away any car
that is parked illegally. Approving this project with the knowledge that this is a likely outcome is unfair to those
businesses. Further, he mentioned that the City could solve the inevitable parking issues arising from his development
simply by enforcing a parking permit system down Chorro, Meinecke, West, and the other streets in the neighborhood.
He is right, with a parking permit system in place, 22 Chorro would be a difficult place for a tenant who depends on a car
to live. However, it will also add a layer of regulation that the current neighbors should not have to tolerate for the
benefit of Mr. Riehl. This project is not close to self-sufficient, and should not be approved.
22 Chorro proposes community areas in the form of rooftop decks that would only be possible because of excessive
building height. There may be room to debate the merits of either proposal individually, however coupled together, this
has to be unacceptable. While these decks will provide the residents a beautiful view of our City, it is difficult for me to
imagine the inevitable outdoor parties will peacefully coexist with the neighbors down Chorro and on the sidewalk
below. A rooftop deck is an accident waiting to happen, and should not be allowed. A building height of 43 feet is
excessive for the area and should not be allowed, even if it does step down towards Chorro.
We face housing difficulties in our communities. We cannot respond to this problem with a "any solution is a good
solution" mindset. 22 Chorro will provide housing units that this City needs. Unfortunately, the plan as submitted will
provide these units irresponsibly and at the expense of our community's current residents. 22 Chorro does not have
adequate on site parking and provides a design that cannot peacefully coexist with its neighbors. For these reasons, I
respectfully suggest that the Planning Commission deny this project as designed.
Sincerely,
Logan Hunter
Resident, City of San Luis Obispo