The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-11-2018 - Item 3 - Martin1 Tonikian, Victoria From:Bell, Kyle Sent:Monday, April 09, 2018 7:36 AM To:Purrington, Teresa; Tonikian, Victoria Cc:Cox, Rebecca Subject:FW: Proposed Development at Orcutt Road and Duncan Lane Attachments:BtD April 9.docx Please provide the attached letter as correspondence for the Planning Commission Hearing 4/11/18. (950 Orcutt – USE-1197-2017) Kyle Bell CDD Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E KBell@slocity.org T 805.781.7524 slocity.org From: Tom Martin < Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 6:20 PM To: Bell, Kyle <KBell@slocity.org> Subject: Proposed Development at Orcutt Road and Duncan Lane April 9, 2018 Dear Mr. Bell, I am writing regarding a proposal being put before the SLO County Planning Commission on April 11th, 2018. Its application # is USE‐1197‐2017. My name is Tom Martin. I live at 911 Bay Leaf Drive in the Avivo Townhouse complex. Avivo is across the street from the property in question. There is another complex, Tumbling Waters, located on the same property as Avivo. It is my understanding that you are the person to whom we should direct email comments on the proposed project at the corner of Orcutt Road and Duncan Lane. If not, would you please get these to the person who is in charge? We have learned that the plans call for 75 apartments and 6800 sq. feet of commercial space. This could mean that on an evening after work, 50 to 150 people might be using Orcutt Road as the main route to this property. Currently there are no signal lights and no crosswalks at the intersection of Orcutt Road, Sacramento Drive and Duncan Lane, a one block long extension of Sacramento Drive. In June of 2017, our car was totaled at this intersection as my partner 2 attempted to make a left turn from Sacramento Drive onto Orcutt. Cars often get up to 40 to 50 mph after going through signals at Orcutt ‐ Broad or Orcutt ‐ Laurel. On Duncan Lane there are several small businesses and one large storage unit business. Even with parking lots designated for the businesses on Duncan Lane, there are times when cars are parked on both sides of the street. With the addition of 6800 sq. feet of commercial space, there will be a need for daytime parking spaces to accommodate customers in addition to spaces available for the tenants and guests. It is noted that in this proposal the developer asks for a 27% REDUCTION in parking spaces! I assume there is a current county policy on how many spaces must be made available for commercial use and for residential use. This policy must be adhered to in this situation. It is utter nonsense to allow a REDUCTION in parking spaces for this project. As an example of some current parking issues, consider Avivo. There are 117 residential units in our Avivo complex with a total of 60 parking spaces. There are 44 marked (“Avivo”) parking spaces on the east side (of Sacramento Drive) and 16 marked (“Avivo”) spaces on the west side (of Sacramento Drive) to accommodate all residents and visitors. There are currently NO handicap parking spaces in Avivo, which I feel must be in violation of some regulation. Tumbling Waters currently has 14 marked (“Tumbling Waters”) parking spaces and 1 marked handicap space. The exact number of residential units in Tumbling Waters is not known by me, but my guess is 30. Even though there is a 2‐car garage for every unit, it is not always possible to park two cars in these tight spaces. Near 5 PM on any workday, there is a race to find a space in Avivo and Tumbling Waters lots. Often spaces are “stolen” from one complex by residents in the other. Soon there will be a rule enforced that anyone parking overnight without their development’s placard being displayed is subject to towing. There are times when residents have to park their own cars and/or send guests elsewhere to find available spots – sometimes on Duncan Lane or Sacramento Drive. There is just not enough parking now and this planned project would increase the clamor for available spaces in the neighborhood. It was recently stated in a Tribune article that another future development may be in the works on Laurel Street near Orcutt Road that would bring 606 residential units and 29,680 sq. feet of commercial use. Not only would parking be a nightmare in our area as a whole, but traffic would be next to insane. We can’t keep putting up places that few people can afford, which come without much needed infrastructure and road development to allow for safe traffic patterns. In addition, we constantly hear what dire straits we are in, or could be, concerning water. What if we don’t get rain over the next few years? All these housing units mean lots and lots of water. This must also be taken into consideration. Has it been considered enough? I am unclear what is being asked for when the developer wishes to claim a Class 32 categorical exemption from environmental review for infill development, but it sounds ominous. It seems that this project wants all the votes cast in its favor so that it can go on and earn lots and lots of money for the developer to the detriment of the entire area. What concessions is the developer being asked to make? My last point is an emotional one for many. Located on this property is a business that most everyone knows: Bang the Drum. When you ask people if they know where this small brewery and gathering place is most will say, ”Yes.” In the few years that it has been in operation, Bang the Drum has become an SLO institution, a landmark. It has become a community, the sort “where everybody knows your name.” To achieve the goals of this developer’s dream, Bang the Drum will be razed to the ground meaning that its funky charm will be replaced with strip mall‐like businesses. What a shame! When deciding whether or not this project should proceed as planned, we urge the Planning Commission to think long and hard about residents in existing homes, water sources, traffic patterns that will make people tear their hair out and less than convivial parking issues. Would the Commissioners be willing to live in the very same conditions? Sincerely, 3 Tom Martin 911 Bay Leaf Drive SLO 93401 Home 805‐439‐2861 Cell 209‐613‐5274 April 9, 2018 Dear Mr. Bell, I am writing regarding a proposal being put before the SLO County Planning Commission on April 11th, 2018. Its application # is USE-1197-2017. My name is Tom Martin. I live at 911 Bay Leaf Drive in the Avivo Townhouse complex. Avivo is across the street from the property in question. We have a “sister” complex, Tumbling Waters, on the same land as ours. It is my understanding that you are the person to whom we should direct our email comments on the proposed project at the corner of Orcutt Road and Duncan Lane. If not, would you please get them to the person who is in charge? We have learned that the plans call for 75 apartments and 6800 sq. feet of commercial space. This could mean that in an evening, 50 to 150 people might be coming home from work using Orcutt Road as the main route to this property. Currently there are no signal lights and no crosswalks at the intersection of Orcutt Road, Sacramento Drive and Duncan Lane, a one block long street. In June of 2017, our car was totaled at this intersection while my partner attempted to make a left turn from Sacramento Drive onto Orcutt. Cars can get up to 40 to 50 mph after going through lights at Orcutt and Broad or Orcutt and Laurel. On Duncan Lane there are several small businesses and one large storage unit business. Even with parking lots designated for the businesses on Duncan Lane, there are times when cars are parked on both sides of the street. With the addition of 6800 sq. feet of commercial space, there will be a need for daytime parking spaces to accommodate customers in addition to spaces available for the tenants and guests. It is noted that in this proposal the developer asks for a 27% REDUCTION in parking spaces! I assume there is a current county policy on how many spaces must be made available for commercial use and for residential use. This policy must be adhered to in this situation. It is utter nonsense to allow a REDUCTION in parking spaces for this project. As an example of parking issues, there are 117 residential units in our Avivo complex with a total of 60 parking spaces. There are 44 marked (“Avivo”) parking spaces on the east side (of Sacramento Drive) and 16 marked (“Avivo”) spaces on the west side (of Sacramento Drive) to accommodate all residents and visitors. There are currently NO handicap parking spaces at all in Avivo, which I feel must be in violation of some regulation. Tumbling Waters currently has 14 marked (“Tumbling Waters”) parking spaces and 1 marked handicap space. The exact number of residential units in Tumbling Waters is not known by me, but I would guess 30. Even though there is a 2-car garage for every unit, it is not always possible to park two cars in these tight spaces. Near 5 PM on any workday, there is a race to find a space in Avivo and Tumbling Waters lots. Often spaces are “stolen” from one complex by residents in the other. Soon there will be a rule enforced that anyone parking overnight without their development’s placard being displayed can be towed. There are times when residents have to park their own cars and/or send guests to find available spots on Duncan Lane or Sacramento Drive. There is just not enough parking now and this planned project would increase the clamor for available spaces in the neighborhood. It was recently stated in a Tribune article that another future development may be in the works on Laurel Street near Orcutt Road that would bring 606 residential units and 29,680 sq. feet of commercial use. Not only would parking be a nightmare in our area as a whole, but traffic would be next to insane. We can’t keep putting up places that few people can afford, and that come without much needed infrastructure and road development to allow for safe traffic patterns. I am unclear what is being asked for when the developer wishes to claim a Class 32 categorical exemption from environmental review for infill development, but it sounds ominous. It seems that this project wants all the votes cast in its favor so that it can go on and earn lots and lots o f money for the developer to the detriment of the entire area. What concessions is the developer being asked to make? My last point is the most emotional. Located on this property is a business that everyone knows: Bang the Drum. When you ask anyone if they know where this small brewery and gathering place is they will all say, ”Yes.” In the few years that it has been in operation , Bang the Drum has become an SLO institution, a landmark. It has become a community, the sort “where everybody knows your name.” To achieve the goals of this developer’s dream, Bang the Drum will be razed to the ground meaning that its funky charm will be replaced with strip mall - like businesses. What a shame! We urge the Planning Commission to think long and hard about residents in existing homes, traffic patterns that will make people tear their hair out and less than convivial parking issues when deciding whether or not this project should proceed as planned.