Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-22-2017 PC Correspondence - Item B2 (Cooper)Meeting. 2— Z Z • l 3-- Item. P2 Z RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FEB 21 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: SLO Planning Commission L� Re: Presentation and information session regarding State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo CA Date: February 20, 2017 Honorable Chair and Commissioners - I would like to argue that neither the ARC, the PC nor the Council have limited discretion to modify or reject projects which provide affordable housing when there are traffic congestion issues yet to be resolved'. I would like to use 22 Chorro as an example. There is nothing in the State Density Bonus Law or Housing Accountability Act that would relieve you from complying with the City's congestion management program which involves the following: SLO Land Use Element Parking "New Development" A. "Outside of the Downtown in -lieu parking fee area, new development will be required to provide adequate off-street parking to match the intended use." SLO Circulation Element 14.1.2. "Neighborhood Protection" "The City shall facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high intensity uses." SLO Speed Survey Report It is an objective fact that according to the City's Speed Survey Report, there is a large volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic due to proximity to California Polytechnic University and that 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. Therefore, your denial of 22 Chorro Street last August 24, 2016, had staff provided you with a draft resolution for such a motion, could have been based on the following objective and quantifiable findings: '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 " Finding 1. That the Foothill/Chorro Street intersection is at a PM Peak Hour Level Of Service (LOS) D with a delay of 42.9 seconds. The Foothill/Chorro intersection is operating at Peak Level of Service (LOS) D, i.e., "approaching unstable flow" and that any additional traffic load could reduce its Level of Service to an unacceptable (LOS) E, i.e., "where any incident will create serious delays and drivers' level of comfort becomes poor". This intersection has a Critical Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (v/C ratio) of 0.75. With the addition of this project, the v/C ratio will approach 1.0 whereby traffic flow will become unstable and delay and queuing conditions will occur. 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. Moreover, this intersection is dangerous because of the nearby location of a fire station. The tenants residing within this proposed project plus the tenants' guests, retail customers, delivery, trash collection and service personnel will be risking life and limb when driving, biking or walking anywhere near this intersection. Finding 2. That the proposed parking reduction will not be safe, and will be detrimental to the surrounding area or cause a decline in quality of life because the project is surrounded by neighborhood commercial with restricted parking privileges and by an R-1 neighborhood where there is a scarcity of on street parking spaces. This project creates an unacceptable 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 because there is presently no on -street parking on any side of the project or across the street from the project. Moreover, several adjacent businesses already have posted parking guards and have aggressive towing programs. This will result in increased ticketing, towing and parking related accidents. Finding 3. That the project will be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity because the proposed project is inconsistent with the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area of the Land Use Element and Zoning Regulations. The Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area clearly states the following: "Among other possible incentives, building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may be considered with mixed use development." Moreover, "...all development within the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Focus Area shall adhere to the requirements of the underlying zone district."This designation (i.e., the underlying zone district of High Density Residential) provides for primarily attached dwellings in two and three story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. This type of development is appropriate in some locations near Cal Poly, in the Downtown core, near employment concentrations, and near transit corridors and notes." With the first two specific adverse impacts in mind, your purview could have included discussing mitigations that would relieve congestion related to traffic flow or parking spill-over. Or you could have come to the conclusion that these specific adverse impacts could not be mitigated enabling you to continue with direction or deny the project altogether and you would have been consistent with the State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act. Thank you!