Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, Cooper■ 0 COUNCIL MEETING: FEB 0 6 2017 ITEM NO.: �, — From: Allan Cooper [ Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 7:49 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.arg>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity,org>; E-mail Council Website <e m a i I cou ncl l @ sloc ity.o rg> Subject: 22 Chorro Street Appeal Dear Mike & Rachel - For clarification purposes, I incorporated a few changes to the letter I sent you yesterday regarding 22 Chorro Street. Would you kindly submit this letter to the Council in place of the previous letter? I promise I won't do this again! - Allan To: SLO City Council Regarding: Appeal to the City Council to Overturn the Architectural Review Commission Approval of the 22 Chorro Project (ARCH -2794- 2016) on December 5, 2016 From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo CA Meeting Date- February 7, 2017 Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members: We are asking you to consider evidence now available and not available at your prior hearing when the use permit was granted and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at that hearing. The Council and the ARC has confined their 22 Chorro discussions to the adverse site constraint impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and on neighborhood traffic patterns. But neither the Council nor the ARC has addressed how these site constraints will adversely affect the project tenants, the tenants' guests, retail customers and service personnel. State law mandates that you also take these impacts into consideration and you have not done so. First, we would like to remind you that back on December 5, 2016, it was within the purview of the ARC to determine if this project could be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the project due to "site constraints". And this determination could be made without affecting your use permit - the 40 percent parking reduction, the density bonus, the use of mechanical lifts or the approval of a height exception. If the ARC's purview is in question, why then did the following finding appear in the ARC's draft resolution and in their final motion? "That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood." Former Mayor Jan Marx states in her February 3, 2017 letter to you: "...Council could not have legally rejected 22 Chorro on the basis of traffic safety concerns because the LUCE EIR included traffic studies stating that Foothill, Broad and Chorro could handle increased traffic resulting from mixed use housing at those intersections." Whether or not these intersections can handle increased traffic is not the issue. We do not care if these intersections can or cannot handle increased traffic. The question is whether the project would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns. Should you agree that the adverse impacts on the project which we are identifying are real then you will also realize that mitigating these adverse impacts could affect the feasibility of this project because it might involve the provision of additional underground parking and/or a major redesign of the Chorro/Foothill intersection. If this increased cost is tantamount to denying the project then so be it. Because we are further contesting that denial of a mixed-use housing project is consistent with State law if it can be proven that this infill project, as it is presently designed, would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns. What Mayor Marx, the City Attorney Dietrick and City staff fail to include in their discussions is the following verbiage from the Housing Accountability Act and the State Density Bonus Law: The Housing Accountability Act states the following: "The State Density Bonus Law requires a City to waive or modify development and zoning standards that would physically preclude the utilization of the density bonus, incentives, and concessions that the applicant is entitled to on a particular site and may only be denied if the following findings are met (Gov Code section 65915(e). Per Government Code 65915(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)." Per Chapter 2.6. Congestion Management [65088 - 65089.10] (Chapter 2.6 added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 106, Sec. 9. ) "(h) The removal of regulatory barriers to promote infill housing, transit - oriented development, or mixed use commercial development does not preclude a city or county from holding a public hearing nor finding that an individual infill project would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns." It is clear that this infill project will be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment because of the potential overflow parking problem and because of the unsafe transportation patterns that presently occur at the Chorro/Foothill intersection. Let's begin with the transportation patterns. City Attorney Dietrick states that "Discussion regarding traffic study requirements came up during the Use Permit review process. City Staff reviewed the project and determined that the proposed mix of residential and commercial of the project did not require a traffic impact study. The project, as proposed, will have 23 peak hour trips, which I contest'. This is well under the requirement that triggers a traffic study per the Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines when a project is anticipated to have 100 or more peak hour trips. Additionally, the project was found to be consistent with the 2014 Circulation Element (CE)." Even though an additional 28 peak hour trips is not sufficient to trigger a traffic study this is again not the issue. We are not asking for a traffic study. The issue is that the developer's off- site improvements should include a major redesign of this intersection given the fact that according to the City's Transportation Impact Study, the Foothill/Chorro intersection is a "high crash location" and has a large volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. According to the City, this roadway is "already operating below the established MMLOS standards and any further degradation to the MMLOs score should be considered a significant Impact under CEQA." The previous quote comes directly out of the SLO Circulation Element. Moreover, this intersection is dangerous because of the nearby location of a fire station. The tenants residing 1 According to "Trip Generation Rates from the 8th Edition ITE Trip Generation Report" a low-rise residential development comprised of 27 units will generate 185 daily trips and 16 peak hour trips. A restaurant of 1,600 sq ft with low - one hour - turnover will generate 144 daily trips and 12 peak hour trips. This totals 329 daily trips and 28 - not 23 - peak hour trips. within this proposed project plus the tenants, guests, retail customers and service personnel will be risking life and limb when driving, biking or walking anywhere near this intersection. Now permit me to discuss how the project will be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment. Former Mayor Jan Marx states in her letter to you that "...The developer's request for a parking reduction concession also could not legally be turned down because the potential overflow parking problem does not present a safety impact and can be mitigated by the neighborhood creating a parking district... Council could not have denied the appeal without denying the affordable housing developer's statutory rights and contravening State law." The creation of a parking district would only be a mitigation for the residents adjoining this project, which is legally not our concern. However, a parking district would make matters worse for the project's future tenants, the tenants' guests, retail customers and service personnel who will inevitably be looking for a place to park when no parking is available within the garage. Already there is no on -street parking on any side of the project or across the street from the project. Unaccommodated tenants, guests, retail customers and service personnel will be forced to find parking in the adjacent neighborhoods and in private parking lots already impacted by spill-over parking. Several adjacent businesses already post parking guards and have aggressive towing programs. This project creates an unacceptable safety risk to the residents who have vehicles that will not fit into the mechanical lift, to the residents who do not have parking privileges in the mechanical lifts, to the tenants' guests, to the commercial/retail customers, to handicapped drivers when the two handicapped spaces are filled, to staff and employees, to the landscapers, maintenance and cleaning personnel and to the commercial delivery workers. Thank you! SLO Circulation Element 6.1.4. Defining Significant Circulation Impact Any degradation of the level of service shall be minimized to the extent feasible in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2. If the level of service degrades below thresholds established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2, it shall be determined a significant impact for purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For roadways already operating below the established MMLOS standards, any further degradation to the MMLOS score will be considered a significant impact under CEQA. SLO Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines - March 2015 When Transportation Impact Studies Are Required: If the project affects existing problematic locations such as high crash locations, heavily congested areas, high access density, or areas of critical local concern as identified by the City. Foothill: Broad/Chorro Intersections Street Classification Residential: Arterial Average Daily Motor Vehicle Volume: 18,858 Average Daily Ped Volume: 526 Average Daily Bike Volume: 642 Speed Limit: 30 Speed Survey Report Unusual Conditions: Large volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic due to proximity to California Polytechnic University. The collision rate (2.73 APMVM) for this segment of Foothill Blvd is above average for the State of California Caltrans District 5, and the County of San Luis Obispo. A Transportation Impact Study is called for at this intersection because it is a high crash location and has a large volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This roadway is already operating below the established MMLOS standards and any further degradation to the MMI -Os score should be considered a significant Impact under CEQA. 17.48.110 Suspension and revocation "If in the opinion of the Director of Development Services, a violation of any applicable provision of this title; or, if granted subject to conditions, upon failure to comply with conditions; or that, as a result of evidence now available and not available at the prior hearing when permit was granted and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at that hearing, the findings made, pursuant to PMC 17.48.070, can no longer be made..."