The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/16/2018 Item 2, Cooper Goodwin, Heather From:Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July To:Cohen, Rachel; Advisory Bodies; E-mail Council Website; CityClerk Subject:790 East Foothill Boulevard Attachments:107_12_18...790foothill.pdf Dear Rachel - Would you kindly forward the letter below to the Architectural Review Commission before their Monday meeting? Thanks! - Allan 1 To: Architectural Review Commission and Rachel Cohen Re: 790 East Foothill Boulevard From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: July 12, 2018 Honorable Chair Root and Commissioners - In my opinion the routing of this project makes no sense whatsoever. This is a typical example of “placing the cart before the horse”. You are reviewing a project that could change profoundly should the Council, when this project comes before them, fail to come up with ﬁndings justifying the 35% density bonus and the two affordable housing incentives or concessions (i.e., exceptions to allowable height and lot coverage). The Council should make these ﬁndings 1 prior to when the Planning Commission reviews it for health, safety and welfare and prior to when the ARC sees to it that it is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. Why might the Council fail to come up with these ﬁndings? It is clear that 790 Foothill is entitled to 3 “alternative or additional incentives or concessions” for having 15% very-low income households (12 out of 78 very-low income studio units). However, the verbiage in the SLO Municipal Code clearly states that “alternative or additional incentives” may be selected if the developer desires an incentive other than a density bonus . 2 Well the applicant has chosen a 35% density bonus but feels entitled to two more affordable housing incentives. Surprisingly, these two incentives fall under only one heading: “reduction in site development standards or modiﬁcation of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements” and it is not clear that the applicant can choose two housing incentives listed under one heading. Nevertheless, this project is now before you and your role, at least currently, is to review the project not only in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, but also in terms of applicable City policies and standards (and please do not allow staff to tell you otherwise). Therefore, it is incumbent on you to ask staff to cite in its report the following passage in our Circulation Element - 14.1.2. Neighborhood Protection: “The City shall facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high intensity uses” and to cite the following passage in our Land Use Element - 2.3.9. Compatible Development: “The City shall require that new housing built within an existing neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Compatibility for all development shall San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 Affordable Housing Incentives 1 17.90.060 Alternative or additional incentives D. “Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the council to approve any alternative incentive or concession. The council shall approve the requisite number of incentives or concessions afforded by this section. However, the details surrounding the incentives or concessions shall be at the discretion of the council.” 17.90.060 Alternative or additional incentives. 2 A. When a developer agrees to construct housing for households of very-low, lower or moderate income households, or for qualifying senior households, and desires an incentive other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.040, be evaluated using the following criteria: I. 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.” You should not be insulted when confronted with the argument that these are truly “one- bedroom” or “two-bedroom” apartments. Each bedroom is 10’- 6” deep and 23’-11” long with double doors located near the middle of each 23’ - 11” long bedroom. You should also not be insulted when confronted by the argument that this developer is providing 13 more parking spaces than the minimum required when you should know that: 3 1.The developer, should you implausibly maintain that these are “one” and “two” bedroom units, is receiving in excess of the maximum 30% parking reduction. He is in fact receiving a 32% parking reduction based on SLO Zoning Regulation Paragraph 17.90.040(J). Parking Calculations: 3 Multifamily parking requirements for 790 East Foothill based on the 30% reduction rule without demising walls: Studio 1.5 12 x 2 = 24 “One” bedroom 2.0 21 x 2 = 42 “Two” bedroom 2.5 45 x 3 = 135 Total 201 30% Reduction 141 Actual number provided 123 Multifamily parking requirements granted 790 East Foothill based on Paragraph 17.90.040(J) without demising walls: 1. Studio to one bedroom: one onsite parking space. 2. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. Studio 1.0 12 x 1 = 12 One bedroom 1.0 21 x 1 = 42 Two bedroom 2.0 45 x 2 = 90 Three bedroom 2.0 Four bedroom 2.5 Total 144 Actual number provided 123 De facto multi-family parking requirements granted 790 East Foothill based on Paragraph 17.90.040(J) with demising walls: Studio 1.0 12 x 1 = 12 One bedroom 1.0 Two bedroom 2.0 21 x 2 = 42 Three bedroom 2.0 Four bedroom 2.5 45 x 2.5 =113 Total 167 Actual number provided 123 (32% parking reduction) Multi-family parking requirements without the 30-40% reduction at 790 East Foothill with demising walls: Studio 1.5 12 x 1.5 =18 One bedroom 2.0 Two bedroom 2.5 21 x 2.5 = 53 Three bedroom 3.0 Four bedroom 3.5 45 x 3.5 = 158 For each 5 units 1.0 78/5 = 16 Total 245 Actual number provided 123 (50% parking reduction) 2.Once all the bedroom demising walls are in place, and based on Paragraph 17.90.040(J), the developer will be receiving a 50% parking reduction. 3.In the worst case scenario, if all tenants have cars, there will be a shortfall of 313 on-site parking spaces. These cars will be vying with the 44 students residing at The Academy (those who will also be lacking onsite parking spaces) for on-street parking spaces in the surrounding neighborhoods. Bear in mind, this segment of Foothill is currently experiencing a large volume of car (18,858 daily volume) pedestrian (526 daily volume) and bicycle (642 daily volume) traffic due to proximity to California Polytechnic University. According to “Trip Generation Rates from the 8th Edition ITE Trip Generation Report” a low-rise residential development comprised of 78 units will generate 534 daily trips and 46 peak hour trips. This, in combination with 22 Chorro (23) and 71 Palomar (20), should trigger a traffic study per the Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines when a project (or projects) is/are anticipated to approach 100 or more peak hour trips. 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. A Transportation Impact Study is called for at this intersection because it is a high crash location and has a large volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 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. By approving this project as submitted you will be reducing public safety by increasing congestion on public streets and depleting available on-street parking. Unaccommodated tenants, guests, retail customers and service personnel will be forced to ﬁnd parking in the adjacent neighborhoods and in private parking lots already impacted by spill-over parking. Several adjacent businesses already post parking guards and have aggressive towing programs. This project creates an unacceptable safety 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. 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.” It is clear that this infill project will be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment because of the potential overflow parking problem and because of the unsafe transportation patterns that presently occur near the Chorro/Foothill intersection. To be clear, creating an Anholm Residential Permit Parking District and expanding the Ferrini Residential Parking Permit District will protect these neighborhoods from spill-over parking, but it is also clear that doing so will adversely impact this infill project by further depleting on-street parking for those tenants lacking on-site parking spaces and this is in violation of Government Code 65088 (h). In conclusion, please continue this project with direction to the architect to reconﬁgure the one and two bedroom layouts showing a demising wall running between the double doors leading into each bedroom. Please ask staff to revise their report memorializing the fact that this project is de facto receiving a 50% parking reduction once all of the demising walls are in place. Finally, ask staff to delete the ﬁrst ﬁnding in your draft resolution as you cannot factually substantiate this ﬁnding: “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 character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood.” Otherwise, you should ask the applicant to either increase the number of on-site parking spaces or decrease the number of units. Thank you!