Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2016 Item 20, Codronint Council Memorandum Date: Monday, October 17, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director PREPARED: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner of Community Development VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager SUBJECT: City Council Agenda Item 20 (22 Chorro Street) 10re-1 R E«IVIED OCT 18 2016 SLO CITY CLERK Staff has prepared the following memorandum in response to Council Members' questions regarding the mixed-use project located at 22 Chorro Street. 1. On p. 248, the staff report references the "Major City Goal" of affordable housing, but it does not discuss the "Other Important Objective" of Neighborhood Wellness. The Council adopted both the Major Goals and Other Important Objectives in January, 2015. Please provide a supplement to include some discussion of that part of our 2015-17 Financial Plan. Since identifying the Major City Goal of "Neighborhood Wellness" the City developed an Action Plan that included: * Working with residents, educational institutions and students * Public safety * Collaborative Solutions * Code Compliance * Administrative Order Process ■ Regular Infrastructure Maintenance This plan has resulted in the following tasks being implemented since the 201 S fiscal year: * Neighborhood Wellness/Community Civility Effort Recommendations • Neighborhood Match Grant Program initiation ■ Established and Implemented Collaborative Communication Plan • Began Implementation of key measures from Community Civility Committee • "Adopt a Block" Pilot Program * Consider Administrative Order process * Public Safety MDU— Cal Poly University Police and SLOPD * Code Compliance Performance Measures e Hired staff to implement rental housing inspection and began inspections * On-going inspections and follow up for rental housing violations * Neighborhood pro -active enforcement 0 Sidewalk Repairs Item 20 - Correspondence • Stormdrain Cleaning, Silt Removal & Stormdrain Replacements • Neighborhood Street Repair & Sealing Page 2 In regards to Neighborhood Compatibility, the Community Development Department has been conducting a study to implement General Plan Land Use Element Program 2.13 which is discussed in question #2 below. 2. That Financial Plan set in motion a Neighborhood Compatibility study that has been the subject of two recent public workshops, to address that Neighborhood Wellness Objective. Please provide the Council with an update as to the progress of this study; there appears to be no record on the City's web site about it. What findings or recommendations are now being formulated under this study, which might be applicable to projects such as this one? The Community Development Department is conducting a study to implement General Plan Land Use Element Program 2.13 which aims to address the issue of incompatible homes proposed to be within existing neighborhoods. Land Use Element Program 2.13 states: "The City will consider new regulations, for Low -Density and Medium -Density Residential areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings. The City will periodically update Community Design Guidelines for larger homes, infill housing and accessory single -story buildings. " (Note: Item #3 was implemented in July, 2014 as part of the annual Zoning Regulations Amendments and established new regulations for accessory spaces.) In June of 2015, the City Council deemed implementation of Program 2.13 a priority and amended the Neighborhood Wellness Work Program. A work task was added to move up the implementation timeline for L UE Program 2.13 ahead of the Zoning Regulations Update. Staff was directed to explore amendments to the Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, or other pertinent documents (or other means) to address neighborhood compatibility. The concern revolved around scale and density of infill projects leading to incompatibility with existing residences in established neighborhoods. The following public workshops and study sessions have been held: Public Workshop #1 On April 6, 2016, staff conducted a Neighborhood Compatibility Workshop at the Teach Elementary/SLO Classical Academy elementary school campus for the purpose of obtaining public feedback and ideas on the subject. ARC Study Session On May 2, 2016, the ARC held a study session to review progress, provide feedback, and offer an opportunityfor public input on the project. Public Workshop #2 On July 14, 2016, staff conducted the second neighborhood compatibility public workshop at the San Luis Obispo Church of the Nazarene for the purpose of obtaining additional public feedback and ideas from interested parties. Item 20 - Correspondence Page 3 Planning Commission Study Session On August 24, 2016, the Planning Commission held a study session to provide direction and review progress and feedback from the public workshops and ARC study session. The following potential recommendations to address neighborhood compatibility have come out of the study so far: 1. Consider a design review threshold based on the size of proposed additions and/or overall size of proposed residence 2. Consider using Overlay districts to establish specific design guidelines for a given neighborhood 3. Consider using Floor Area Ratio in residential zones 4. Consider requiring specific setback standards for upper floors 5. Consider policy requiring maximum buildable area be a function of average lot size of properties in a given radius 6. Consider guidelines with goals and supporting strategies 7. Consider use of more specific text supported by graphics The next steps of the project are to formulate a draft ordinance and hold a public workshop before circulating the Draft for review by the Advisory Bodies, and ultimately the City Council. Staff has communicated with the public for all the workshops and study sessions by posting to the City's news webpage and sending emails associated to those news items. Staff will set up a link on the website with information and updates for the public on the progress and status of this effort. 3. On page 249, item #2 under "staff's rationale for recommending approval of the height exception" states that the project would qualify for 7 density bonus units, and notes that 5 of the bonus units are located on the top floor. The final sentence of that paragraph then states, "...the additional maximum height allowance to accommodate the top floor is needed to build the density units." This appears to a conclusion that is unsupported by factual evidence. Where is it written — and why is it concluded — that the project could not develop 27 density units within the height limitation established by the zoning ordinance? Merely because this project proposes a configuration that exceeds the City's height limit, why does staff conclude that it is impossible to develop a project that includes 27 density units and yet still stays within the 35' height limitation? The applicant has requested additional building height as an affordable housing incentive. The test relative to the density bonus law and Housing Accountability Act is if denial of the incentive would render the provision of the proposed housing units infeasible. Based on staff's evaluation, there were two primary issues pushing the project to go vertical. The first is the on-site parking requirement, and the second is the size of the proposed two- bedroom units, which average 1,150 square feet each. Staff evaluated the option of eliminating the five units on the fourth floor of the project using Municipal Code (M. C.) square footage maximums as guidance. The M.C. limits the size of a studio to 450 square feet and one -bedroom units are limited to 1, 000 square feet; the M. C. does not provide square footage limitations for two-bedroom units. Units may be reduced in size, but unless they are all reduced to under 1, 000 square feet, the project will Item 20 - Correspondence 2 need to have units on the fourth floor. Staff did not impose a square footage maximum during its review of the project, however, if the City Council or Architectural Review Commission direct that the overall size of the fourth floor be reduced, then staff would work with the applicant to assess the feasibility of reducing the number or size of units on the fourth floor. As mentioned, the need to provide parking on the site also drives the overall height of the building. The project includes a mechanical parking lift system that requires a taller floor to ceiling height of approximately 11.5 feet. To help mitigate the overall building height, the floor to ceiling height of the upper residential floors was reduced to eight feet (typically they are nine feet), which allows the overall height of the building to be reduced. 4. Please address the basic question of the proposed predominately -residential land use and its consistency — or lack thereof — with the underlying C -C -SF zoning. The project includes only a very small, 1,600 s.f. leasable commercial space out of about 54,000 s.f. of total building area. Moreover, much of the Foothill Boulevard frontage (at least one-third by linear feet) is consumed by the bicycle parking and non -retail uses. In what way does this project conform with the City's design guidelines — and basic principles of good urban design — that call for a continuous, lively and attractive retail frontage in any commercial street? Isn't this project in fact a predominately residential project, with such a small percentage of commercial use? The M.C. Section 17.08.0 72 outlines the standards for the design of mixed use projects. According to the M. C. "a mixed use project requires a combination of residential units with any other use, or combination of uses allowed in the applicable zoning district. " The standards do not set a maximum or minimum ratio of non-residential and residential uses within a mixed-use project. The only limitation provided in the M.C. is that "residential units shall not occupy ground floor space within the first 50 feet of floor area measured from each building face adjacent to a street. " As noted, the first floor of the project contains 1, 600 square feet of commercial/retail space. The adjacent space along the street frontage includes bicycle parking, but is designed as an interactive space for the residents. The space will be available for residents as a lounge to gather in and also provides a space to repair their bicycles. Although not a commercial space, the area is designed to be a place of activity and not a storage room or an access way to the residential units. 5. Please explain whether the Floor Area Ratio limitation of 2.0 x site area applies to gross or net site area. The net site area for this project is noted as 21,874 s.f., and total Building Area is 50,998 s.f. This appears even to be in excess of twice the Gross Site Area as well (24,033 s.£) by about 2,932 s.f. The M. C. definition of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) does not specify whether the FAR is based on the gross or net total area of the property. FAR as defined is "the gross floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by the lot area. Floor area ratio does not include below grade or subterranean parking garages and basements or similar non -conditioned floor space. " Based on this definition, staff conducted a calculation for FAR using the net site area of 21,874 square feet. The total gross floor area of the project is 33,927 (this excludes the 9,810 square feet of parking and 7,261 square feet of circulation access that Item 20 - Correspondence Page 5 is not counted per the FAR definition). Therefore, the FAR is 1.55. The C -C zone allows 2.0 FAR. 6. The developer proposes to qualify for exceptions and density bonuses on the basis of the four studio units; the staff report on p. 251 notes "11% of the project is affordable". This leads to three questions: a. What is the maximum rent that can be charged for one of these units and still qualify as affordable for very -low-income households? The current 2016 maximum rent for a very -low income studio unit is $674.00. The City sets the rental limits every Summer, so the rental price could vary slightly due to timing of occupancy. b. What guarantee does the City have that these four units will continue to be "affordable" to very -low income households AND that they will continue to be occupied by very -low-income households? The City will record an Affordable Housing Agreement on the property to ensure these four units remain affordable for 55 years. The property owner will then be responsible for annually supplying the income certification of each tenant in the affordable units and a copy of the lease to verify the correct rent is being charged. c. Given that the other 23 market -rate units are standard 2 -BR units that each count as one full "density unit," and that studio units only count as'/2 a "density unit," would it not be more accurate to state that the four studio units constitute only 8% of the total? [(4x0.5)/25 density units]. The density bonus calculation is based on the number of actual units as defined by the State, not City density. To achieve a 35% density bonus, I1 % of units (prior to inclusion of density bonus units) must be deed restricted as very -low income. The base density of 18 units requires that only 2 units be deed restricted; under City density definitions this equates to 4 studio units. Any units the developer gains through a density bonus can be market rate. 7. What parking requirements did the lofts at Chorro and Monterey have? Are there restrictions on parking that could be placed on 22 Chorro? How can the neighborhood be protected from over parking if the project is approved? The project located at Monterey and Chorro paid in lieu fees for the overall project and did not include any other restrictions. 8. How can the neighborhood be protected from over parking if the project is approved? The neighborhood could request to be part of a parking district. The project also includes a variety of accommodations for bike, pedestrian, and transit users in the proposed project so not owning a car is a viable option for future residents of the project.