The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Dietrick) From: Dietrick, Christine Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:45 PM To: Price, Lee; Christian, Kevin Subject: ARC/Council correspondence Attachments: RE: Letter re 71 Palomar Project Attached from the applicant's legal counsel. Christine Dietrick City Attorney r CITYOF r SffR LUIS OBISPO City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org RECEYVF AUG 0 2 2016 SLD 0TY CLERK The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Dietrick,Khristine Sent: Monday, [Aug ust®1,1201613:43IRM To: Goetz,Don Cc: Loren [Riehl;[3£odron,[Michael;fforey,Efyler;[Davidson,[Doug; INermann,[Greg;D Ansolabehere,Don; Kohen,[Rachel Subject: RE: @etterDe[P1 [Pa lomar[Project Attachments: Scanned 10rornDDCerox[Multifunction[Device.pdf Jon, thank you for your letter. This office takes the City's legal obligations and constraints very seriously and it is always our priority to ensure that City decision makers are well apprised of applicable legal standards and are acting consistent with those laws. Community Development staff and this office are also committed to ensuring that the City has fulfilled its obligations to conduct a thorough and complete environmental analysis of the project, the conclusions of which consider and rest upon the best information available. I believe the City is moving forward appropriately, while balancing all of its legal obligations and I look forward to you and your client contributing to an informed public process. As always, we welcome feedback throughout the process and are always willing to consider relevant legal authority or factual information you may feel we have not adequately considered. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick City Attorney CITY OF = u SHIM LUIS OBISPO City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Goetz, Jon [ Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 4:37 PM To: Dietrick, Christine <cdietrick@slocity.org> Cc: Loren Riehl < Subject: Letter re 71 Palomar Project Christine: Please see the attached letter. Jon E. Goetz Attorney at Law MOSKOvITZ rIEDEMANN & GIRARD 233 W. Foothill Blvd. 2nd Floor Claremont, CA 91711 733 Marsh Street, Suite 210 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 T 626.773.4904 T 805.250.7955 igoetz(cDkmtg.com www.kmtq.com CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this email in error, and delete the copy you received. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Treasury Regulations, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used or relied upon by you or any other person, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax advice addressed herein. Thank you. MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN & GIRARD August 1, 2016 Christine Dietrick City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jon Goetz Igoetz@kmtg.com Re: Proposed Multifamily Housing Development at 71 Palomar, SLO Dear Christine: This firm represents LR Development Group, LLC, the applicant to develop the property located at 71 Palomar in San Luis Obispo with 33 units of multifamily housing. We are writing to express our concerns regarding the City's review of the project to date. As you know, the State of California has declared that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and that attaining this goal requires the cooperation of local government and private builders in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. Local governments have a responsibility to facilitate the development of housing to address regional housing needs, and must consider how their approval process affects the economics of proposed housing (Government Code Section 65580, et seq.). The proposed project is meant to address a portion of the housing needs of the City as expressed in the City General Plan. It contains 4 units for very low income households, which qualifies the project for a density bonus under state law. As a critical part of its statewide housing program, the Legislature has enacted the density bonus law in order to "contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments" (Government Code Section 65917). Under that law the City is prohibited from applying development standards that have the effect of precluding the development at the density prescribed by the density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915(e)). In spite of the City's responsibilities to support the feasibility of the housing to be constructed in this project, the project continues to experience efforts by the City to eliminate units, add expensive conditions, and impose other requirements that may make the project impossible to build. For instance, you will see from the minutes from the Cultural Heritage Committee March 28, 2016 meeting that at least three of the committee members "expressed concerns Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, A Professional Corporation I Attomeys at Law I www.kmtg,com 1474179.1 00003.002 Proposed Multifamily Housing 71 Palomar, SLO Page 2 about the number of housing units proposed for the site." There was also discussion about the demographics of the people that may choose to occupy the building. We are not aware of any provision in the Historic Preservation Ordinance that addresses either of these subjects, so these comments seem to be both outside of the purview of CHC and in direct contradiction to state and federal laws. While we recognize the City's legitimate need to thoroughly scrutinize the project in accordance with the City Code and state law, we are concemed that the City may not be cognizant of its responsibilities under state law with respect to the approval of proposed housing developments. Besides the constraints of the Density Bonus Law, the City should be aware of the limited circumstances under which it may disapprove a housing project which is consistent with existing City zoning and general plan land use designation under the State's Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5). We trust that you and your office will help to guide City staff and officials to remain in compliance with the state and local requirements for review of housing projects with an affordable housing component, as well as the myriad other laws guiding the City's decision making process such as the Housing Accountability Act and fair housing laws. As new processing delays have begun to arise, we also want to make sure that the timing of the project review remains in accordance with the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920, et seq.). Furthermore, because of the affordable housing component of this project, it should receive "high priority processing" under City Municipal Code Section 17.90.070(A). The applicant continues to be willing and interested in working with the City as the project moves forward, but wants to make sure that the City review remains in accordance with applicable laws. We would be happy to work with you in helping to ensure that these requirements are properly applied to the proposed project. Very truly yours, KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD A Pro essionai Corporation f1 V Jon G ' tz FIN 1474179.1 00003-002