Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, Lopes (2)COUNCIL MEETING: Q2 -O-7-2-017 ITEM NO.: (10 Christian, Kevin From: James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net>Lan T Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:22 PM CTo: John Ashbaugh; E-mail Council Website Cc: Codron, Michael; racouillat@charter.net; Lydia Moure FWT 7 2017 Subject: 22 Chorro Appeal Dear Mayor Harmon and Councilmembers: SLO CITY CLERK I agree with the points and requests of Allan Cooper and John Ashbaugh, and I ask you to rescind the previous approval of the Conditional Use Permit, due to more information which is available now about the traffic impacts occurring in the vicinity of the project, as discussed by Mr. Cooper. The use permit should be re- examined with the objective of reducing the size and number of bedrooms within the number of units granted a "Density Bonus." Only the number of units is governed by the now -infamous Govt Code Section 65915, as I explained in my letter. This law is a terrible way to encourage affordable units within market -rate housing projects, as can be studied further. The project should be required to have more studio and one -bedroom, units. At present, you are reviewing only four studio units and 23 two-bedroom units. The size of these units drives the number of parking spaces needed and the size (and architecture) of the building. The project should be required to have smaller units with no or one bedroom, for which the on-site parking requirement could be met, so that the building massing can be set back on upper floors, or the fourth floor can even be eliminated. Lastly, the use of tin corrugated siding is just not appropriate next to the older residential neighborhood. In fact, the architectural style of the building should be more "well appointed" due to its size and location. No metal sheathing should be allowed, and the color scheme should be the preferred "earth tone" range of colors, as is still typical within our city, and encouraged by the Community Design Guidelines. The Ferrini building across Chorro Street is the design quality which has previously been the hallmark of our city. Sincerely, James Lopes James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805-602-1365 On 2/5/2017 10:13 AM, John Ashbaugh wrote: 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 parkin 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, Jolm B. Ashbaugh 193 Los Cerros Dr. San Luis Obispo