Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2016 ARC Correspondence - Public Hearing 1 (Cooper 2)Meeting: � 17- - os - l U Item: I December 5, 2016 Chair, and Members Architectural Review Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Allan Cooper 756 Broad St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEC 06 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Architectural Review Commission 12/05/16 Regular Hearing Project: 22 Chorro Street ARCH -2794-2016 This project will be detrimental to and will have specific adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity because the project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, Design Guidelines and Zoning Code, specifically with respect to parking, height, setback and compatible development, and there are no feasible methods of satisfactorily mitigating or avoiding these adverse impacts other than disapproval of the project. Per San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 17.16.060 the project requires 55 spaces on-site parking spaces. The project proposes 33 parking spaces and has requested a 40% parking reduction which is the maximum combined reduction allowed per SLOW (mixed-use parking reduction) and (G)2 (bicycle space parking reduction). The justification for the 30% parking reduction based on the mixed use development is wholly inappropriate in that the times of the proposed mixed-use parking demand from the two uses will coincide in such a way that it will have detrimental impacts on the surrounding area. In other words, the proposed "mix" of uses and the parking demands from each of those uses is not commensurate with the requested reduction and that, as a consequence, the project will be deficiently parked and vehicles will further impact the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed setback of zero feet along Chorro Street is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.3.9.A and the setback requirements of SLOMC17.16.020.C. For this zone, the setback requirement for a street yard setback equals "As provided in zone of adjacent lot" which, in this case equals 20 feet due to the R-1 zoning immediately adjacent to the proposed project. The setback requirements as set forth in SLOW 17.16.020.0 establish objective standards to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community and that, as proposed, the project is incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood and fails to provide a smooth transition between the two uses in this regard and adversely impacts the immediately adjacent neighbors by disrupting the neighborhood setback pattern. The proposed height of 43 feet is inconsistent with Conservation and Opens Space Element Policy 9.2.1 and Circulation Element Policy 15.1.2 because the project will block views of Cerro San Luis Mountain from Foothill Boulevard which is designated as having moderate scenic value. The proposed project height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policy 2.3.9.E Compatible Development and Community Design Guidelines sections 5.3.A.1 and 5.3.C: Architecture; the project's height and scale does not provide a smooth transition between the existing and proposed development because the existing development immediately surrounding the project is predominantly one story and the proposed development would create an abrupt height differential thus creating a substantial disconnect between the structures with the neighborhood and overwhelm neighboring properties. The proposed project height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Policy 2.3.9.E Compatible Development: Privacy and Solar Access; the project will overlook into adjacent properties and does not respect the privacy of neighboring building and outdoor areas. In conclusion, I urge you to heed the findings that can be found in Richard Racouillat's letter to you. Mr. Racouillat is a lawyer serving San Luis Obispo in corporate law, business law and real property cases. He not only has concerns regarding the fact that this project is severely overbuilt, but has stated in no uncertain terms that it is severely under -parked because under applicable law the maximum allowed parking reduction is 12 spaces (not 22 spaces). He clearly illustrates how the mixed-use parking reduction has been miscalculated. Mr. Racouillat also explained in his letter how the proposed project will help create a more dangerous Chorro/Foothill intersection for both cars as well as for pedestrians and bicyclists. Also please heed Council Member John Ashbaugh's persuasive call for a traffic study at this intersection before approving this bizarre proposal to erect a four-story building in such an unsuitable location. The necessity to conduct such a study before adopting a proposal of this kind should be self-evident to you, to administrative staff as well as to all Council Members. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully Submitted, Allan Cooper To: San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission Re: PH1: 22 Chorro Street. ARCH -2794-2016 Date: December 5, 2016 From: Allan Cooper Honorable Chair and Commissioners - The Land Use Element explicitly mentions "density bonuses" and "reduced parking" as incentives. However, the LUE does not explicitly mention "increased height" as an incentive. The LUE under 17.90.050 "Alternative or Additional Incentives" merely states that incentives can be granted in the form of exceptions to subdivision or zoning property development standards. The LUE states that the developer qualifies for three incentives or concessions for housing developments that include at least fifteen very -low income households. Even though 22 Chorro qualifies for three incentives it has in fact received four incentives. These are as follows: 1. exceeding the density 2. reduction in parking 3. exceeding the maximum height 4. exceeding the FAR (the LUE actually forbids exceeding the Far) Increased height is mentioned as an incentive for mixed-use developments in the Foothill Blvd./Santa Rosa Ave "Focus Area", though it specifically states that this increased height is only recommended to occur on the North side of Foothill, not the South side. Because the Density Bonus Law repeatedly recommends incentives that provide the developer with "equivalent financial value", it is not clear that building a fourth floor will save the developer money but will instead add to the overall cost. Finally, according to the Government Code 65915(e) Housing Accountability Act denial can be based on findings that this infill project will be adversely impacted by the surrounding transportation patterns, patterns that will result in significant and unavoidable traffic congestion. Therefore, based on the specific, adverse impact traffic congestion will have on both this project and on public health and safety I am urging you to deny this project or, at the very least, continue with direction. Thank you! Supporting Documentation LUE 8.2.1. Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Areas "Among other possible incentives, building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development." This project is located on the South side of Foothill... not the North side. This project barely qualifies as mixed use given the minuscule square footage allocated for retail Chapter 17.41.020. Community Commercial (C -C) Purpose and Application "Community commercial areas are intended to be configured as distinctive, pedestrian -oriented shopping centers and may accommodate larger scale uses that are not appropriate in the Downtown Core." Given that so little street frontage is dedicated to retail, this project cannot be described as a "pedestrian -oriented shopping center". LUE Chapter 1 Land Use Standards: Policy 2.4. Residential Density for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing. "So long as the floor area ratio for the applicable designation is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to non-residential development on a site." Chapter 17.41.020. Property Development Standards For The C -C Zone Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 2.00 Building Area: 50,998 sq. ft. (2,932 sq. ft. over) Gross Site Area: 24,033 sq. ft. FAR: 2.12 Government Code 65915(e) Housing Accountability Act Denial must be based on: "(B) The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment..." " As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact' means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete." "(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code)." CHAPTER 2.6. Congestion Management [65088 - 65089.10] (Chapter 2.6 added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 106, Sec. 9. ) .. finding that an individual infill project would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns."