HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/4/2020 Item 3, Elder
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Jay Elder <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Development Plan - 487 Leff St
Attachments:HASLODevelopment 050320.docx
Please see attached letter regarding my public comments for the ARC review of the
development at 468 Leff St. Hearing is tomorrow May 4, 2020. Please confirm that you have
received this communications. Thank you.
Jay Elder
1
May 3, 2020
Architectural Review Commission
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: HASLO – 487 Leff Street Planned Development
Objections to Parking Reductions
I object to the proposed development at 487 & 468 Leff Street due to the lack of onsite
parking that will force still more use of on street parking for this development. Adding
more density and less onsite parking will compound the parking issues in this
neighborhood.
Parking in this neighborhood has been an ongoing issue as just about every resident
living here will tell you. And now the city is going to further exacerbate the lack of
parking by reducing parking spaces for a city/HASLO project?
I have owned property adjacent to the proposed development since 1978. My property
is designated historic and I have taken pride in maintaining that designation. Parking
has been and continues to be a major issue in this neighborhood (Old Town). I have
vigorously objected to previous neighborhood development when parking reduction
has been proposed, including the subject property.
The proposed parking is inconsistent with the city’s general plan, zoning requirements
and other city regulations. The reduction of parking spaces for this project is not
justified.
The original office planned development (Dec. 1970 & Nov. 1971) at 487 Leff allowed
for the reduction of the required 18 parking spaces down to10 spaces. A reduction of 8
parking spaces. The previous variance moved the needed parking onto the right of way
on High and Beach Streets for the HASLO office use.
The HASLO residential development 456-492 Leff St (1971) originally was approved to
include 37 parking spaces where 55 spaces were required. The city then in about 2010
again permitted recreational development in the parking spaces reducing the original
parking spaces to 24. So, we have already lost over 50% (31 spaces) of the required
parking per the City’s regulations at the residential site.
The current development plan is again requesting an additional reduction of parking
spaces and allowing a high-density office building development to encroach onto the
public right-a-way, compounding the three previous parking space
variances/reductions.
Per the staff report 44 spaces are required by the city regulations for the proposed new
office development. The report also states that the new office development does not
result in “major” changes in the number of employees. Can the applicant define
“major”? Will the city/HASLO specifically limit the number of employees by official
regulation?
It is also stated HASLO will “have onsite management and oversite on how it’s employees use
the available parking avoiding problems with the surrounding neighborhood.” By what
authority can HASLO police parking on the right of way? Please identify the HASLO
employee who will be the responsible party for the enforcement of this management
program.
The Travel Demand Management Plan/Study is questionable in how HASLO can be
successful implementing all the recommended measures or the assumptions made by
the consultant. The study or plan does not justify the exception to the city’s
requirements for parking. The proposed shared use of the limited 24 parking spaces
(originally 55 spaces were required) at the apartments by HASLO is also questionable.
Many of the tenants at the Leff street properties currently park on the street.
I support HASLO and their primary mission to serve those in need of housing
assistance. I also support the existing neighborhood residents and the city’s historic
designation of this Old Town neighborhood. I object to any variance that reduces the
number of parking spaces for new developments. My objection is based on past
multiple reduction in parking spaces for the subject properties. The HASLO has not
made a persuasive case for needing a parking variance. The proposed parking space
reductions do not comply with the city’s ordinances, programs or polices and should be
denied.
Sincerely,
Jay and Helen Elder