HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, AshbaughCOUNCIL MEETING: `I R9CEIVED
ITEM NO.:
FEB 0 6 2017
From: John Ashbaugh [
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:13 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Cc: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Lydia Mourenza <
Subject: 22 Chorro Appeal
Dear Mayor Harmon and Councilmembers:
I strongly support the appeal of the 22 Chorro project by Rick Racouillat and Lydia Mourenza. I encourage you
to uphold the appeal and deny the Architectural Review permit on the grounds of excessive scale, and I request
further that you direct staff to return this project to your Planning Commission to mitigated the significant
adverse impacts of this project on traffic circulation and parking.
If you determine that you are unable to uphold this appeal, then I urge you, at the very least, to add a condition
that would require the establishment of a parking district prior to issuance of a building permit.
Significant adverse impacts on traffic circulation and parking
This project would have significant adverse health and safety impacts because of its design, its excessive scale,
and its lack of adequate parking. The project has requested, and depends upon, the City's discretionary grant of
a 40% reduction in parking, which was recommended by staff only after adding a 20% parking reduction for
mixed-use projects. Yet that mixed-use parking reduction REQUIRES that all parking be available for BOTH of
the uses proposed. This project reserves the vast majority of the parking spaces for the residential tenants, and
has only 4 non -ADA spaces for the commercial tenant AND for any visitors for the project. Additionally, it
provides for only 2 ADA spaces, clearly inadequate for a 27 -unit apartment building and a 1600 s.f. commercial
space.
Your Planning Commission DENIED the Use Permit for the project last August, on a 4-1 vote, because they
determined that the proposed parking was inadequate. Although the previous Council overturned this denial
(over my strenuous objections), it is fully within your discretion, even at this late date to act to protect the health
and safety of the neighborhood by adding a condition or conditions that would correct the deficiency of parking.
I cite health and safety concerns primarily because of the lack of a sidewalk on critical blocks of Chorro Street
near this project, specifically between Rougeot Place and Murray Street. Those blocks are already heavily
impacted by curb parking associated with the rental housing that fronts Chorro Street in this vicinity, housing
that generally lacks sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the needs of the residents there. When cars
parallel park in this area, the drivers exit their vehicles and frequently walk a fair distance in the travel lane,
exposing themselves to cars in the northbound direction on Chorro. Between Murray and Rougeout, there is a
relatively steep hill with limited vertical sight distance. As a daily driver on that route, I've often had to dodge
pedestrians who are entering or exiting their vehicles in this location.
The 22 Chorro project would place additional pressure on these limited, and dangerous, curb parking spaces.
Inevitably, this project would generate "overflow" parking that will impact the entire R1 neighborhood around
it — none more directly than this block which offers the closest curb parking to the site.
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.
Recommended project conditions to mitigate significant health and safety impacts from parking
You have been advised by staff that it is legally questionable whether you could modify the scale of the project
without risking a conflict with the State Density Bonus Law. That law requires that you grant TWO concessions
to a qualifying project that provides affordable housing. You have done so in granting an exception to: 1) The
height limit, and 2) The setback requirements.
You have no such obligation, however, with respect to the parking reductions. You have a responsibility to the
neighborhood — both commercial as well as residential property owners and tenants — to make sure that this
project does not generate "overflow" parking. There are a number of conditions that might be added to the
project WITHOUT RISK OF VIOLATING STATE LAW, in order to prevent the need for such "overflow"
parking. I recommended just such a condition to the ARC at its December meeting, and I will repeat it here:
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 final wording of any parking management condition(s) should be negotiated between staff, the applicant,
and the Planning Commission.
If you feel that you must approve this project at your meeting on February 7, as a "bare minimum" I would ask
that you add the following condition:
• Prior to issuance of a building permit, a parking district shall be established within all R-1 blocks
surrounding the site for a distance of at least 500', under the procedures established in the
Municipal Code for creating a parking district.
The parking district would enable residential properties within this immediate neighborhood to protect their
curb parking, and discourage overflow parking from this project from occupying scarce curb space.
If the longer condition proposed above (italics) were added to the project, a parking district would be
unnecessary. If, however, it is deemed imperative to advance this project in spite of its clear health and safety
impacts, this condition is essential to assure that the project lives up to its promises. The Council on which I sat
spoke favorably of the prospects of a parking district, but failed to add this condition. Thus, it is up to you to do
so. In a recent message to you by the past Mayor, this condition was also proposed once again as a means of
correcting the damage that was done by the previous Council. It is the least that you can do, in order to respond
effectively to neighborhood concerns.
You do not have to accept the recommendation of staff that your decision-making scope be confined only to
those narrow issues involved in "architectural review." The direction of the Council in October — the Council on
which I sat as a member — was that the ARC should resolve those issues that the Planning Commission had
identified, but which the Council felt unable to address. Thus, we delegated these important matters to the ARC,
only to learn in December that the staff did not regard that body as an appropriate place to resolve those
unresolved issues left hanging by the Council.
It is your responsibility now to uphold this appeal, and to return this project to the appropriate advisory
committees for further consideration and mitigation of significant adverse impacts related to insufficient
parking. I urge you to do so, in the interests of the health and safety of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
John B. Ashbaugh
San Luis Obispo