The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/25/2018 Item 1, Lopes Goodwin, Heather From:James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net> Sent:Tuesday, July To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Davidson, Doug; Cohen, Rachel Subject:PC hrg 7-25-18: 790 Foothill Attachments:PC 7-25-18 Item 1 - 790 Foothill -Lopes.pdf Dear Chairperson Fowler and Commissioners, Would you please open the attached letter and read it before this hearing? Thank you. James Lopes Ph. 805-602-1365 1 1 912 Bluebell Way San Luis Obispo, California 93401 July 25, 2018 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo , California 94501 RE: PC July 25, 2018 Hearing Item 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard Dear Chairperson Fowler and Commissioners: I am as king your Commission to use the discretion that you have, to require changes in the project to preserve at least 80 perc ent of the view of Bishop Peak as seen from Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street, and 80 percent of the view of San Luis Mountain from Chorro Street. This effort may involve reducing the size of housing units, reducing the type of units, moving floors to other less intrusive parts of the buildings, and perhaps lowering the building pads (and parking) one floor. These changes will not reduce the density of the project if done with intelligence and fairness to the community and this neighb orhood. STATE LAW The staff report carefully describes the requirements of the Density Bonus Law, which reportedly blocks your discretion to reduce density to meet the City General Plan (see belo w) or other design issues. Another state law, the Housing Accountability Act, is also in effect, and it allows design standards to be met even with a reduction in density, as long as the project can feasibly provide the number of affordable housing units.  Which state law should the City follow, the draconian, authoritarian Density Bonus Law, or the more reasonable Housing Accountab ility Act (HAA)?  The hearing should be continued for sta ff to engage in statewide research to determine the legislative inten t and precedence or priority of these laws. Omitted from the staff report, is the D ensity Bonus Law provision that the City does not have to grant the request ed density bonus concession or the incentives , if these are not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents for the affordable units (Govt Code 65519(d)(A)). This u nobtrusive section can be implemented by obtaining a n economic analysis from the developer .  The City should have prepared an economic analysis of the project proposal, to determine if any bonus or incentives are actually necessary to build and operate the 12 affordable studios. The analysis can be by the developer, or by the City at the developer ’s expense. 2 CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT  The project does not conform to the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan. Staff has provided no analysis of this non-conformity. 1. Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street are identified as streets with Moderate scenic value in the Conservation and Open Space Element, Figure 11, within the project frontage and vicinity. 2. Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street provide public views from vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic of Bishop Peak, one of the famous Morros addressed and protected by the COSE. See Figure 1 below. Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street Figure 1. Bishop Peak from southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street 3 3. The project will block views partly and fully of Bishop Peak, as shown below in Figure 2 from Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street intersection. Current building heights are perhaps 15 feet. Proposed heights vary, up to 43 feet. Figure 2. View from northeast corner of Foothill and Chorro 4. COSE policy 9.2.1.A , states that “Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.” The COSE policy should not be met by leaving just the top 10 to 30% of the view. The view will be maintained by obscuring only a minor part of it, such as 10 to 30% blockage of the bottom slopes. 5. 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. The COSE requires the ARC to conduct architectural review explicitly oriented to conform the project with the COSE policies in this matter. 6. PROGRAM 9.3.5: Visual assessments. Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for projects affecting important scenic resources and views from public places. The COSE requires that the ARC require accurate visual simulations concerning the loss of views to Bishop Peak, and perhaps San Luis Mountain on Chorro Street. 7. COSE PROGRAM 9.3.6: View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along scenic roadways is a significant impact. The COSE policy may affect and negate the proposed Categorical Exemption from CEQA due to this impact. It may require that an Initial Study be conducted to determine the degree of view blockage and recommend mitigations to reduce the view blockage to insignificance, or Approximate height of only a second story at the Blackhorse location, as seen from the intersection. More than 60% of the view appears to be blocked. 4 prepare an environmental impact report if suitable measures cannot be implement, and develop project alternatives to the proposal which retain or achieve insignificant impacts.  Design changes should be made to reduce the building heights dramatically at the location of the Blackhorse Coffee House and the former McDonalds.  Large-scale, unmistakable framed views of Bishop Peak and perhaps San Luis Mountain (as seen from Chorro Street) should be the minimum to consider at least at and near the intersection of Foothill and Chorro. P lease reduce height but retain the allowed density by using a combination of these modifications:  Floor plate elevations might be reduced , for instance, if rooms are proposed at 9 or ten feet or higher.  One or more of the top floor(s) might be moved to other now-separate buildings. The Land Use Element is specific in this regard, in that, "Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered with mixed use development." Views of Bishop Peak might be preserved if a single story is located closest to Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street. The upper floors could be relocated to the north , Chorro Street side of the property , and perhaps stair- stepped up toward the back corner .  The individual size of the three kinds of units might be reduced , gaining a cumulative reduction in floor area, but not in density.  The mix of market rate unit types mi ght be revised , to require more, smaller studios and one-bedroom units, and fewer two bedroom units, for instance. Certainly the smaller the market rate units, the more people will be able to afford them. Smaller units will provide smaller floo r area and help in shifting floors to other buildings, or to just eliminate a floor on a building. TRAFFIC SAFETY The traffic report does not identify the potential collision and other safety hazards with the project and cumulative building in the Foothill area. The study only uses potential building within the zoning and omits any discussion whether this building would be at the level encouraged by the LUE Special Planning Area for Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Street.  Your Commission should require that traffic safety impact information be provided for the project and cumulative building in the area. It may well be that the traffic conditions themselves may become bad enough to justify a reduction in the density (number) of units. Such a determination is allowed by the HAA and the “DBL” to either deny the project or reduce the proposed number of units. CEQA DETERMINATION In order to qualify for a categorical exemption from the CEQA process, a project must be consistent with the General Plan, zoning and other standards. This project clearly does not comply with the Conservation and Open Space Element. 5  An Initial Study should be prepared to identify potential impacts on aesthetics, traffic safety and the other required topics. A Mitigated Negative Declaration may need to be prepared to identify the feasible measures that would reduce potentially significant impacts to insignificance. My earlier comments to the Architectural Review Commission still stand concerned with the potential and likely doubling of the number of bedrooms. Staff has identified how this measure is undertaken, but they have not identified the potential number of occupants which result. It is likely divided bedrooms will have two occupants, doubling the number for the respective apartment. Such a design feature as proposed should be estimated for its potential parking and traffic demands, and included in the traffic safety study that is needed to fully identify if the p roject should be approved, denied or reduced in scope. Sincerely, James Lopes, AICP