HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2018 Item 2, Smith (2)
Goodwin, Heather
From:Jennifer Smith <jennifer.annette.smith@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Proposed 790 Foothill Development
Please do what is best for our community. Luxury student housing at extremely high rents is not what is best for the
residents or students. Please adhere to existing codes and regulations on new developments for height and size. Please
do not make the same mistakes made on the Chorro project. This will only harm our community. Find a way to build in
this space while maintaining existing codes!
Thank you,
Brett and Jennifer Smith
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 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. 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 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: 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). 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. 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
1
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! 1 San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 Affordable Housing Incentives 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.” 2 17.90.060 Alternative or additional
incentives. 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, 3 Parking Calculations: 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
2
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)
3