HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2016 Item 20, Logan
To:
Subject:
Gallagher, Carrie
RE: 22 Chorro
From: John Logan [
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 10:35 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: 22 Chorro
Members of the City Council,
10—kir-20%6
ITEM NO.: Z 0
FRECEIVED
OCT 12 2016
SLa CITY CLERK
It is no secret that our City faces a housing shortage. I trust that you, our elected leaders, are not blinded by this need
when evaluating the suitability of this proposal as it comes before your body. The proposed project at 22 Chorro Street
is one that warrants significant criticism and ultimately, denial.
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, need, and want cars, even if they are not used daily. In a development with 50 bedrooms, that is
designed to house 100 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. As designed, this development is nowhere near self-
sufficient and cannot function without undue impact to its' neighbors.
The developer took advantage of parking 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 this development, so
obviously suited to students and young professionals with a wide variety of work and school schedules, and with
inadequate parking to begin with, it is difficult for me to accept that this stipulation can possibly be met. What will be
the business hours of the tenant in this development's commercial space? What will their operating hours 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? How can we even determine peak parking demand for our younger demographic given their
irregular work and school schedules? Regarding the first means of achieving parking reduction, additional bicycle parking
will do little to decrease the parking demands of this development's residents, visitors, employees, and customers.
Affordable units should be in the same size, character, and quality as the rest of the living units. These four affordable
studios, in a development of 2 -bedroom apartments, will hardly meet the needs of our workforce, for whom they are
supposedly designed. Should the developer be rewarded with a waiver to the height limit predicated on these four
studio apartments that are obviously inadequate to meet the needs of our workforce? To our Planning Commission, this
answer was clear. I trust that you will reach the same conclusion.
22 Chorro is a mixed use project in name only. One small commercial space hardly meets the intent of the Single -Family
overlay zoning, and represents an insufficient attempt for the developer to put a primarily residential building on land
that should be primarily commercial.
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 this development. 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 this project and its' developer.
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 where one exists
because of the other, 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 building height of 43 feet is excessive for the area and should not be allowed.
We face housing difficulties in our communities. We cannot respond to this problem with an "any solution is a good
solution" mindset. Unfortunately, 22 Chorro as submitted will provide housing units irresponsibly and at the expense of
our community's residents and neighborhoods. 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 City Council deny this
project and ask that the developer return with a design that is self-sufficient, in proper scale, truly mixed use, and with
affordable units that are respectful of the needs of our workforce families.
Sincerely,
Logan Hunter
Phillips Lane, City of San Luis Obispo
2