HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, RowleyCOUNCIL MEETING: 2 - - _ RECEIVE
ITEM NO.; - FEB 0 7 2017
CITY
From: Sandra. Rowley
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 8:54 AM
To: Harmon, Heidi <hharmcn@slocity.ar >; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan
<DRivoire@Wccity_org>; Pease, Andy <a ease slocitV.org>; Gomez, Aaron <aeomez@siocitv.org>
Cc: Gallagher, Carrie <CGailagher@siocity.org>; Goodwin, Heather <hgoodwin@slocity.org>
Subject: Item 6, Appeal of 22 Chorro
Please see attached letter.
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
. San Luis Obispo, CA
February 7, 2017
SUBJECT: Item 6, Appeal of ARC Decision Regarding 22 Chorro
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods has several concerns regarding traffic, parking and building
design of the project at 22 Chorro.
Traffic
Traffic at the intersection of Chorro and Foothill is known to be heavy, and the intersection has
been identified by the City as a high collision area. The configuration of the project does nothing
to reduce known traffic hazards and may, because of reduced setbacks, the location and length
of the driveway and the speed of the mechanical lifts, exacerbate those hazards and negatively
affect the health, safety and welfare of pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicle drivers.
a. Although Residential Collector streets, like Chorro, normally have a maximum of 3,000
ADT (average daily traffic) when all schools are in session, Chorro and Broad Streets (north of
Lincoln) have a maximum desired ADT goal of 5,000 (CE, Table 4). However, the actual AADT
(annual average daily traffic) on Chorro from Foothill to Lincoln is 8,570 (CE, App E); this includes
those times when schools are not in session.
b. Out of 102 intersections surveyed for the Circulation Element update, only 12 had a level
of service at or below "D," with "F" being the lowest category. The intersection of Chorro and
Foothill, rated "D," was one of the twelve (CE, App F).
Circulation Element (CE) 6.2.1. Traffic Count Program states, "As funding permits the City shall
biennially complete a traffic count program for pedestrians, bikes, vehicles and transit...." If
traffic counts have not been done by the City since sometime before December 2014, they may
have been done as part of the redevelopment requirements for University Square (CE, Table 5).
Parkin
If, as it appears, the parking reductions were erroneously calculated - that error needs to be
corrected. The project as currently designed lacks sufficient parking for tenants, employees,
customers and guests. The applicant may be correct in his assumption that most tenants will use
bicycles to go to class and get around the city; however, this does not mean the tenants will not,
also, have cars and need a place to park them. In addition, ground -level parking spaces will have
to be found for those vehicles that do not fit in the lift. Where will that be?
1
The parking in nearby business lots and residential neighborhoods is already heavily impacted.
Once the project is completed, tenants, employees and customers will be faced not only with the
lack of sufficient on-site parking, but also with few, if any, nearby off-site parking spaces.
Stating that establishment of a parking district is an adequate mitigation ignores the fact that the
excess vehicles will either park in nearby commercial lots, and risk being towed, or find areas
further away to park their vehicles. This will not mitigate the lack of parking, it will only transfer
it elsewhere, thus negatively affecting other business owners and/or residents and requiring
tenants to walk further. This is a nighttime safety concern as well as an inconvenience.
Design
"The City shall require rights-of-way to be reserved through the building setback line process or
through other mechanisms so that options for making transportation improvements are
preserved." (CE 9.1.5) If the ARC had looked at the building setbacks and determined they
should mirror those of the majority of properties along the south side of Foothill and all of the
properties the east side of Chorro, the option to make subsequent improvements to these
streets would still exist, and there would not be the very real concern for pedestrian and bicyclist
safety at or near this intersection. See Traffic, above.
When disparate residential zones abut it is common to require the most dense to include
setbacks of the upper floors. Although the underlying zone is Community Commercial, the added
housing component is 50% more dense than our high density residential zone (36 units/acre
versus 24 units/acre) and the design places three stories at the side of the project that shares a
property line with a one-story, single-family dwelling located on a low density, R-1, lot. However,
it does not appear that either the second and/or third floors are set back. The Planning
Commission was correct in stating that the height and scale of the project did not provide a
smooth transition to the adjacent dwelling and the immediate neighborhood.
Other design features, such as the location chosen for the driveway and mechanical lifts,
stairway, trash cans, and rooftop mechanical equipment, seem to place most of the noise -
producing items at the exterior of the building adjacent to the single-family dwelling. This does
not appear very neighborly and, depending on the level of noise produced, could definitely affect
the health and welfare of the occupants of that dwelling.
Our City regulations are considered "permissive," i.e., if something is not mentioned in our
regulations, it is not allowed. Our regulations allow for porches, patios, courtyards and
balconies. They do not allow for roof decks, although staff, the ARC and the City Council have
occasionally approved them. However, since it is not specified in the Design Guidelines, or
anywhere else, the roof deck should not be allowed.
2
Sewer
On October 4, 2016 a presentation was made to the City Council regarding three areas of the city
that feed into sewer lines that are at capacity. The project at 22 Chorro is located within one of
those areas. During a recent storm, the manhole cover at Broad and Murray popped off, twice,
allowing the effluent to escape and flow down Broad Street. One certainly hopes that any solids
were at or near the bottom of the lines. However, it is certainly possible that some microscopic
solids, along with their bacteria, were a part of the effluent that escaped. What, if anything, will
keep effluent from this project from being added to the overburdened lines and released onto
Broad Street?
Summary
You are being asked to certify that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be
compatible with site constraints, and the scale and character of the surrounding area. We do not
see how you can do that since aspects of this project will affect the health, safety and/or welfare
of persons living or working in or near the project and the project is not compatible with the
adjacent or nearby R-1 properties.
We request that you uphold the appeal and deny the project as it is currently designed.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
3