Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, Cooper (2)COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: Gardner, Erica FEB 0 7 2017 sLO CITY CLERK From: Allan Cooper [ ] Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 12:06 AM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@siocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.or9>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@siocitv.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.orP_;>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.or-,>; Codron, Michael <mcedron@sfocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocitv,nrg>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietrick@slocity.org> Subject: 22 Chorro Street - Suggested Mitigations w/out Revoking the Use Permit Dear Michael and Rachel - Would you kindly forward the attached letter to the Council before their meeting tomorrow? Thanks! - Allan To: SLO Mayor and Council Members Re: Appeal of 22 Chorro From: Allan Cooper Date: February 6, 2017 Honorable Mayor Harmon and Council Members Even though it is legally within your power to revoke the project's use permit based on evidence now available that was not available at your prior hearing, you can nevertheless leave this use permit in place if you recommend mitigations that should have been offered up by the ARC. Because the ARC neglected to come up with mitigations to insure that the project site constraints would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site. We already know that the Chorro/Foothill intersection is dangerous and we do not need a traffic study to determine this. The ARC failed to come up with mitigations for the hardship and safety concerns imposed on the future tenants of this project related to this dangerous intersection. The off-site improvements to this intersection recommended by the developer will not make this intersection any less dangerous. The Council should be motivated by our testimony to require the developer to redesign the schematic site plan by increasing the depth of the drop off lane along Foothill, by closing off the right turn lane from Chorro onto Foothill (as was done at Ferrini and Highland where left turns were eliminated), by incorporating a scramble intersection at Chorro and Foothill, by placing a mid -block crosswalk to deter jaywalking across Foothill near the project's eastern boundary and by installing flashing lights on the mid -block crosswalk notifying motorists that pedestrians are crossing. Other traffic calming devices should be explored such as speed tables and pedestrian refuges. We do not need to form a parking district to mitigate this project's impacts on the adjoining R-1 neighborhood. A parking district will only place more of a hardship on the future tenants of 22 Chorro. There needs, instead, to be mitigations for the hardship imposed on the future tenants as a result of the 40% parking reduction. These mitigations could involve requiring the developer to incorporate a laundromat into the first floor retail space to prevent the tenants from having to walk or bike nearly a mile to the nearest laundromat at California and Taft. These mitigations could involve exchanging regular parking spaces for more ADA accessible parking spaces. These mitigations could involve providing off-site parking in the form of a nearby surface parking lot for the students who occasionally need a car for weekend trips, for grocery shoppers who need to make the long trip to discount stores and for students and students' spouses who have to commute daily to out-of-town jobs. Of course the best mitigation of all would involve revoking the use permit, which you can do, by citing the State Density Bonus Law's findings in Government Code section 65915(e). This states that nothing shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with its congestion management program. And compliance would involve denying an infill project when it is adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns'. Thank you for your time and consideration! '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."