CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

proposes to apply Section 41-1344 of the SAMC, utilizing hotel off-street parking standards rather than the TZC's Downtown Zone's non-residential off-street parking requirements. In order for the concessions and site plan review approval to be granted, a finding must be made that the development will not be inconsistent with the purpose of the underlying zone or applicable designation in the general plan land use element. I do not believe that required finding can be made here with regard to the concession for less parking. The granting of the concession for reduced parking and for limited access to the parking spaces may be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to surrounding properties by creating a defacto reduction in the number of required parking spaces for one individual development. No property right is denied this Property and given to any other property in the same zone and vicinity.The Applicant makes the argument that the TZC parking requirements do not differentiate between hotels and other commercial uses. The Applicant states that therefore, the required off- street parking for all commercial uses in the TZC Downtown zone is one parking space per every 400 square feet. Application of the TZC Downtown zone standard for the 62,516 square foot hotel would require 156 parking spaces, which would be an additional 73 spaces beyond what is proposed by the Applicant. The SAMC Section 41- 1344 hotel off-street parking requirement for hotels requires one parking space for every room plus one space per every ten rooms. The Applicant argues that application of SAMC Section 41- 1344 hotel off-street parking standard is a more apt standard, as it would require only 83 parking spaces. The fact that the Applicant believes that Section 41-1344 is a more apt standard than the Code requirements currently in force in the TZC is not a justification for the concession. If that is the standard that the City and the Applicant wish to see applied, the TZC should be amended through the proper legislative process to reflect that standard, rather than attempting to achieve it by inappropriately seeking a concession. Use of Hotel Site for Housing and Subterranean Parking Levels make Concessions Unnecessary City claims that the FAR, height, and other concessions are necessary because the existing standards physically preclude the development and/or make it economically infeasible (Staff Report, pp. 75A-10 — 75A-11, 75A-27 — 75A-29). However, but for applicant's insistence on using parcel 2 as a hotel, the market rate and affordable DUs can be physically accommodated on the hotel parcel consistent with the FAR and height limitations. The economic subsidy report says nothing about whether the exclusion of the hotel would make the affordable units economically infeasible (id. at pp. 75A-4, 75A-205 — 75A-210). In fact, it would suggest otherwise, given the City specifically anticipates the potential for the hotel to be converted into residential if the hotel is not profitable after five years (making any plans for transient occupancy taxes entirely illusory). Furthermore, the subsidy report makes no mention why the project could not accommodate all of the Code -required parking in subterranean parking levels and, thus, not need the parking or height concessions.