HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2018 - Item 2 - Lopes1
Tonikian, Victoria
From:James Lopes <
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 12:53 PM
To:Advisory Bodies; Davidson, Doug
Cc:Cohen, Rachel; Allan Cooper
Subject:ARC Item 2 - 790 Foothill
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Chairperson Root and Commissioners:
RE: 790 Foothill
I ask that you continue this item indefinitely with direction for the applicant to redesign the project to be consistent with
the Conservation and Open Space Element, eliminate the dual bedrooms scheme, and to conduct a traffic study that
shows what scale of project can be accommodated safely on surrounding streets and sidewalks. I wish to make a few
points about this project and your review:
1. Discretion: The staff comments about the Housing Accountability Act in paragraph 3.4 miss the point that the
ARC and City have the discretion to direct design changes as long as the project's ability to provide the
requested affordable units is feasible. In such a large project as this, the cost factors of making architectural
changes are insignificant when compared with the subsidy costs and marginal cost of renting or selling
affordable units, versus their retail cost/price. As written in the staff report, the City has wide design review
discretion.
2. Views of the Hills. The staff missed a major point in the Community Design Guidelines, 3.1.C.1.d ‐ Opportunities
to preserve or enhance views of the hills. This section asks that your Commission ensure that the project will
show consideration for opportunities to preserve or enhance views of the hills, which in this case is primarily
Bishop Peak. Foothill Boulevard is listed as a street with Moderate scenic value in the Conservation and Open
Space Element, Figure 11. This listing is not done lightly; the rating is obviously a compromise with the reality of
an outstanding view of Bishop Peak through the project site. The project would block almost the entire view of
Bishop Peak. The project will block views of Bishop Peak and other peaks from surrounding development. The
COSE includes these very important policies which should initiate a CEQA Initial Study:
COSE POLICY 9.2.1. Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will
preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage
other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic
buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route
segments shown in Figure 11 are designated as scenic roadways.
A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views
COSE POLICY 9.2.2. Views to and from private development. Projects should incorporate as
amenities views from and within private development sites. Private development designs should
cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to be met.
COSE PROGRAM 9.3.4: Environmental and architectural review. Conduct environmental
review and architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies regarding visual
impacts and quality.
2
COSE PROGRAM 9.3.5: Visual assessments. Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations)
for projects affecting important scenic resources and views from public places.
COSE PROGRAM 9.3.6: View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage
along scenic roadways is a significant impact.
The project should be redesigned with fewer units and a lower profile on at least half of of the site, to at
least "preserve" public views of Bishop Peak through at least half of the site. The project will still be
feasible, although perhaps with one or two fewer affordable units, at the low percentage ratio offered.
The City is giving away the public's view of Bishop Peak perhaps unwittingly, and careful attention to the
adopted COSE, CEQA and the limitation of the current CEQA exemption is called for.
3. Traffic Danger and Accidents. The comments of Allan Cooper are revealing that accident records are high within
the two intersections of Foothill with Broad and Chorro Streets. A traffic study should have been required by
staff; it is now up to you to have staff analyze the accident data against the projected city traffic plus project
traffic through this complicated set of intersections.
4. Parking Demand. The project is not designed honestly; everyone who has delved into the floor plans knows
this. Each of the long bedrooms will be partitioned into two bedrooms. There will be as much as twice the
occupants, and vehicles, as proposed. The staff have not grappled with this design ploy with any positive
results. It is up to your Commission to magnify your attention onto these bedrooms and direct the design to be
altered to conventional bedrooms with no feasible way to partition them. This may mean reduction in floor
area in each bedroom, or changing to single doors and moving their locations.
5. CEQA Exemption. The Threshold Requirements for a Residential Exemption in Section 15192, state that a
project must be consistent with a general plan. and any mitigation measures of the applicable plan. In this case,
the project is not consistent with the COSE policies stated above. The project
This is a complicated project. Don't let the simplified approach by City staff make you think that this project will be
inconsequential or have few impacts.
I ask that you continue this item indefinitely with direction for the applicant to redesign the project to be consistent with
the Conservation and Open Space Element, eliminate the dual bedrooms scheme, and to conduct a traffic study that
shows what scale of project can be accommodated safely on surrounding streets and sidewalks. If streets are
considered utilities in CEQA, then the unsafe traffic conditions on Foothill Boulevard, etc., which are recorded, indicate
that the project is not exempt from the threshold requirement that the site can be adequately served by existing
utilities.
Thank you.
James Lopes, AICP