The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-07-2018 - Item 2 - Mulholland1 Tonikian, Victoria From:Christine Mulholland < Sent:Saturday, May 05, 2018 11:11 AM To:Davidson, Doug; Cohen, Rachel; Advisory Bodies; CityClerk Subject:Fwd 790 East Foothill Boulevard Attachments:405_04_18...lettertoarc.pdf Hi, All, Once again, I find myself in agreement with Allan Cooper, who lately had done a bang up job of writing and sharing the concerns of many of the residents of the city. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the the city to provide housing for the students of the local colleges to the detriment of permanent residents and neighborhoods. I believe the project before you does exactly that, as does the 22 Chorro monstrosity. For years, single family neighborhoods have been negatively impacted by students moving in and breaking the traditional bonds of cohesion created by long term residents. Five students rent next door to me, and each year we residents of this single family neighborhood hope it does not become a party house again. The house has 3 garages, but the students do not park in them, but on the streets. With the permitting of high density, high rent dorm developments reaching further into the neighborhoods, and with inadequate parking included, the city is disrespecting long term residents and our quality of life. Yet it is us to whom the city turns, begging for more tax dollars to fund the maintenance and upgrades of our infrastructure. Enough is enough. Christine Mulholland 805‐544‐6618 Dear Doug and Rachel - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the ARC. Thanks! - Allan To: Architectural Review Commission Re: 790 East Foothill Boulevard From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: May 4, 2018 Honorable Chair Root and Commissioners - 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. 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. 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 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 at 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: 1 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). 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 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 Parking Calculations: 1 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) 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. The developer will probably tell you, should you dispute this 50% parking reduction, that by increasing the number of onsite parking spaces or decreasing the number of units, this project will not “pencil out”. The California Housing Accountability Act requires that “feasibility” be taken into consideration. However, the “…burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the required ﬁnding(s) for any permit or approval in compliance with this Division is the responsibility of the applicant.” Nevertheless, lacking any proof provided by the applicant, we will attempt to address this issue of “feasibility”. Assuming that there will be a minimum of 468 students occupying this building, the developer will be garnering (at $1,400 per bed per month - an average rate already established at “The Academy”) over $655,200.00 per month or $7,862,400.00 per year. Considering that this building is 134,686 square feet in area and that construction cost would average at the top level of $200 per square foot, the overall construction cost of this building would be $26,937,200.00. Currently the developer pays $4,000 per year in property taxes, the assessed value of the property is $366,000 and the purchase price was probably around $1,000,000.00. The “upfront soft costs” (permits, legal and title fees) are generally 30-40% of the construction costs which would equal $10,774,880. Add to this the architect’s fees who would receive 10% of the total construction cost ($2,693,720.00) and the total cost after construction is complete (approximately one year) will be $41,409,800. Property taxes ($482,000.00 per year) and property maintenance costs ($216,506.00 per year) could average $698,506.00 per year. This means that the development costs would completely amortize in approximately 6 years and less if there are rent increases over this 6 year period. Usually a developer is looking to have his apartment complex free and clear within 10 years. Thank you!