Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2012 ac PH1 schmidt ph1Richardson, April From :Council, SloCity nt :Monday, August 06, 2012 11 :16 A M Richardson, Apri lbject:FW : Taft Street project appeal AGENDA CORRESPONDENC E Date 101t2 :item#P14 1 From : rschmidt@rain .or g Sent : Monday, August 06, 2012 11 :15 :19 AM (UTC-08 :00) Pacific Time (US & Canada ) To : Council, SloCit y Subject : Taft Street project appea l Re PH 1 Dear Council Members , When I authored the city's mixed use ordinance towards the end of my planning commissioner years, the proposal on Taft Street was exactly wha t we had in mind for application of this ordinance - adding residential us e to commercial uses whenever commercial and office areas were redeveloped . In fact, we specifically spoke of Taft Street (then a string of derelic t I rvice station sites)-as an opportunity and exactly the sort of plac e ese new forms of development were desirable . Our vision was that the city would pro-actively apply the MU designatio n as a zoning overlay over the entirety of downtown and its nearby offic e areas and all neighborhood shopping areas, so that as propertie s redeveloped,we'd quietly gain a lot of desirable residential units . Unfortunately, rather than demonstrate moral courage by doing that, th e council has kowtowed to what Dan Buettner (Thrive - the happiest cit y book) called SLO's "reactionary business community" whose having been kep t in check by earlier councils produced the happiest city, has done nothin g to advance the MU vision . As a result, hundreds of potential units have gone =built as many commercial areas, including the rest of Taft Street , have redeveloped with insipid and likely short-lived non-sustainable stri p malls . Would it not have been better had there been a strong nucleus o f mixed use along that entire street rather than what we'll end up with no w strip malls with an apartment house at one end ? So, the developer has attempted to do what we had in mind, yet I fin d myself sympathetic to appellants, who raise some strong points in contras t to the staff's sycophantic obeisance to the applicant . ome thoughts : 1.Staff doesn't even meson the cold winter shado . 35-foot tal l building will cast on adjacent residential properties . The project i s directly south of the residences behind it . With the Conservation an d Housing elements calling for protecting solar access, how is it OK to cas t a cold shadow in the coldest part of the year? Look, this is simple 410geometry one can work out on the back of an envelope . At noon on Dec . 21 , a 35-foot tall building will cast a shadow for about 65 feet . That wil l cover the alley and much of the residential property across it . Noon's shadow is the shortest of the winter's day - the shadow will be longer a t every other time of day . Why doesn't staff do this simple analysis rathe r than mouth platitudes about "meeting development standards?" 2.The "den ." Staff's analysis here is nonsensical . EVERYBODY knows tha t this will be student housing and that a "den" is a bedroom in disguise . Prior to staff's current total obeisance to whatever developers say , people at city hall acted smarter . When the "two bedroom" Pine Cree k condos came in (2 bdrm, den, loft), everyone laughed at the audacity o f it, and saw immediately they were actually going to function as fou r bedroom units, whatever the developer wanted to call them,and proceede d accordingly . The same should be true here - you need to recognize the de n will become a bedroom,and move accordingly . What impact will that have o n analysis of the project and its requirements ? 3."But Condition 12 will prevent conversion of the den ." Don't make i t worse, staff, with this sort of comedy-show stuff . Conditions relating t o private building interiors are totally unenforceable . Besides, truth b e told,.staff doesn't give a damn about the enforcement of conditions . They're violated right and left with impunity, and even when pointed out •to top staff, nothing happens . Example : a motion made by planning commissioner Ashbaugh with numerous conditions NEVER, enforced . I wrote t o Ms . Lichtig about this many months ago, she referred it to Mr . Johnso n (who'd just started work), who responded to both of us with a letter ful l of irrelevancies, platitudes and lies . To this date all the violation s remain . The point being that even after making complaint to the top level s of responsibility, nothing, absolutely nothing, has been done to correc t non-compliance with Mr . Ashbaugh's stated written conditions . This is th e way it is in this town . I have a litany of conditions ignored, converte d garages code enforcement officers can't see, of unpermitted second an d third units that have been officially "removed" even as they remain i n place and fully occupied, and worse . Any dependence on conditions as a remedy for an obvious problem simply doesn't pass the honesty test becaus e your insubordinate staff doesn't care a fig what conditions you approve . 4.An observation . The project is extremely thin MU . It's really a n apartment complex with a very small commercial presence . I just want yo u to understand this . At this site, I don't have an opinion whether this i s good or bad, but it's something staff doesn't point out . We reall y shouldn't dress up this sort of scant mix as actual MU . 5.I urge you to order a full sunlight analysis so you have the facts you • need to judge the solar impact of this project, in whatever form it ultimately takes, on n by residences . I also urc~you to direct staff t o add sunlight analysis to ALL of its project revie w 6.The latest proposed modification by the applicant certainly seem s tier than the version approved by the ARC (which should also be directe d o include sun analysis in its deliberations -who cares if a project i s "beautiful" if it destroys the livability of its neighbors?). But is i t good enough? A competent sunlight analysis should be done to help answe r that question . 7.I'm actually concerned that the project's residential density is a bi t low for this location .It seems to offer more opportunity than i t provides . The density appears to be only about twice that of nearby R-1 areas . But I've not done a detailed analysis of this issue, just a n impression from looking at plans and comparing to nearby densities . Sincerely , Richard Schmid t PS . So why all the . fuss about sunlight analysis? SLO says it wants to b e sustainable . The natural energy flows of a site, which here means mainl y sunlight, are the key to sustainability . Why not make sure that every sit e can capture the free energy of the sun, rather than let some hog it fro m others? Taking away solar access that already exists (as with thi s project) strikes me as a criminal thing to do . Without city action t o otect solar access, all talk of sustainability is just persiflage .It's easy to take action to protect solar access, yet in actions we'r e ecades behind actual progressive places, as well as some that make no pretext of progressivity .