HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2016 ARC Correspondence - Public Hearing 1 (Ashbaugh)
From:
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 2:14 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Cc: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Lichtig, Katie <klichtig@slocity.org>
Subject: Item 1 Architectural Review Committee meeting Monday, 5 pm
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing as a citizen of this community, soon to depart from my role as a Councilmember, but intending to remain in my
home in the Foothills neighborhood — and to remain actively engaged with important decisions that affect my community, and
my neighborhood.
I travel on a regular basis on Foothill and Chorro Streets to reach the downtown. I wish to add my voice to those of my
neighbors who have raised strenuous objections to the approval of 22 Chorro. Many of these objections lie directly within the
purview of your Commission, and it is entirely within your discretion to deny this project and return it to the developer for
redesign, based on these concerns.
Louis Sullivan, one of the originators of high-rise architecture in the late 19th century, authored the principle that "form follows
function." It would be a disservice to you, to the City, and to the community of architects that you serve in this city if you do
not consider the functions of this building and its awkward relationship to its site and surroundings.
Please consider two key ways in which this project violates good site planning and urban design principles in its function and
form:
1. Continuitv of commercial uses on the around floor
As designed, the ground floor functions almost exclusively for the private, exclusive use of the residential functions
on floors 2-5. Were this a multi -family residential neighborhood, this would be perfectly normal — and we would
welcome the addition of the 1,600 s.f. commercial leasehold on the corner. However, this is not the case with this
site; it is zoned "CC" and it is a vital link between the commercial corridor east and west of this intersection.
The vast majority of the project's Foothill Blvd frontage is devoted to a private residential lobby, bicycle garage and
gym, exclusive to the tenants of the building. It offers NOTHING for the casual shopper or pedestrian, and presents
a "retail desert" for that length of the sidewalk.
The CC zone here is intended to emphasize NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL uses on the ground floor, and this
project is neither neighborly nor commercial, with the exception of the tiny, 1500 s.f. retail space on the corner. This
is unacceptable, and the ARC should demand that the project be re -configured to provide continuous (or largely
continuous) retail frontage along Foothill Boulevard.
To permit this project to proceed as designed would open up ALL of the City's commercial areas, including the
downtown, to a proliferation of lifeless, sterile street and sidewalk exposures — and it directly violates the balance of
commercial and other uses that is represented by our adopted Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance. Those
documents represent a covenant between the City's elected and appointed officials and the neighbors and business
owners that worked so hard to write them. Please do not accept this design; instead, I urge you to return it to the
developer with an instruction to honor the concept of "mixed use" with a better balance of retail uses on the ground
floor.
2. Insufficient Parkin
Much has already been said about this subject and I do not choose to repeat it here. I would only remind you that
this topic is still open and that it comes within your purview. It was a fundamental concern about parking that
formed the basis of the Planning Commission's denial of the project. In approving the project, the Council majority
appeared to be convinced that the parking conditions were satisfactory.
They are not. The staff report admits that there is no handicapped parking for the residential component of the
project. Instead, residents who require a use of a handicapped space are expected to utilize the two handicapped
parking spaces reserved for the commercial uses. This observation betrays the letter and spirit of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Furthermore, the conditions now imposed on the project would require that parking spaces within the three
mechanical lifts be allocated to each of the proposed apartment units — yet the vast majority of these units are
intended to be occupied by up to four individuals, each of whom could own a separate vehicle with no firm
restraints to assure that all of this residential parking need can be accommodated either on- or off-site.
I urge you to direct staff and the applicant to return to the ARC with a parking program that realistically addresses
the parking needs of the uses proposed within the building. Specifically, I suggest that the new parking program
should be based on emerging "smart growth" theories of how best to manage parking as a scarce resource in order to
maximize its efficiency and achieve other planning objectives. Here is some sample language that might be
employed to achieve this:
Revised Condition #_: The developer shall submit a revised parking program to the Community Development Director
for review and approval to guarantee that parking demand is managed entirely on-site, or with off-site parking with 200'
of the project site. The developer's parking program shall be clearly stated within each lease agreement executed with the
tenants, and shall include the following provisions in order to accomplish this purpose:
a. All tenants shall be offered the opportunity to participate at reasonable cost in a ride -sharing and/or bike -sharing
program for the benefit of residents of 22 Chorro Street, as well as monthly or seasonal transit passes for SLO
City Transit or Regional Transit (or both).
b. Those tenants who choose not to utilize on-site parking shall not be charged any portion of the costs of providing
parking for tenants with private, on-site vehicles.
c. Those tenants who do choose to own a private vehicle associated with their residence shall be charged a specific,
itemized rent for their individual use of a parking stall on the property not less than the estimated cost for such
parking, including both the construction costs, proportional land and space within the site and building, as well
as maintenance and depreciation.
d. If at any time the number of tenants who choose to pay for an individual parking space exceeds the number of
spaces available on site, the developer shall be required to acquire sufficient designated resident parking within a
nearby property, suitably zoned, within 200' of the site, prior to executing a rental agreement with that tenant.
e. Any tenant who requests a paid on- or off-site parking space but who is denied such parking may file a statement
with the Community Development Director that will commence enforcement action against the property owner
for failure to comply with this Use Permit, up to and including revocation proceedings.
The above condition is recommended in the hope that we may collaborate with the staff, the ARC, and the
developer in an effort to assure that this project does, indeed, represent the spirit of Sullivan's principle that
"FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION." It is possible that a project can be designed on this difficult, awkward,
even unwieldy site that creatively addresses the legitimate objections of its neighbors. It will take considerably
more work than we've seen to date.
And finally, let's please at least make certain that there are sufficient spaces available for tenants with
disabilities!!!
Thank you for considering my views.
John Ashbaugh
193 Los Cerros Drive
San Luis Obispo