HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2016 Item 20, RiouxS A N• L U I S• O B I S P O- C O U N T Y
1N
HOU
�� S
'HOUSING FOR A L
October 18, 2016 COUNCIL MEETING,Lo (05(2_0K.
ITEM NO,: '> �
Delivered via email to emaiicouncilAslocity.org, mcodronCr sloeity.ore and diohnson slocity.org
Mayor and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 22 Chorro Street — Item 20 on your October 18, 2016 Agenda
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council:
I am writing to encourage you to unanimously approve 22 Chorro, which is being heard on
appeal because it was recently denied by the Planning Commission.
As you know, San Luis Obispo desperately needs additional housing, especially rental housing
and affordable housing. By adding new rental units to the City's housing stock, 22 Chorro will
provide many benefits for the community and its residents. These benefits include: I) increas-
ing our unsustainably low rental vacancy rate, 2) reducing the incidence and degree of housing
cost burden among local renters and 3) increasing housing opportunities for local residents who
are homeless. The project will also help the City meet its Housing Element goals.
The benefits of approving 22 Chorro will accrue even though the project will cater to students.
For some inexplicable reason, those who oppose student housing don't understand that students
compete with everyone else in our overheated rental housing market. They also don't realize
that 10% of the students in the Cal State system are homeless and need affordable units such as
22 Chorro will provide.
In denying 22 Chorro, the Planning Commission expressed a number of concerns, including
1) that there were too few affordable units, 2) that there were too few parking spaces, 3) that the
project was too high, 4) that there was too little commercial space and 5) that the project didn't
conform with the spirit of the newly updated LUCE, which is part of the City's General Plan.
My response to most of these concerns is that they should read State Density Bonus Law (DBL)
which is Government Code §65915. Under DBL, applicants must be given a 35% density bonus
if 11 % of the units allowed by the zoning will be deed restricted and affordable for very low
income (VLI) households. This project clearly qualifies for a 35% density bonus because four of
the 18 units allowed by the zoning will be affordable for VLI households. Even when counting
two equivalent units of affordable housing, the project qualifies for a 35% density bonus.
71 Zaca Lane, Suite 130, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 4 (805) 543-5970 0 www.slochtf.org
October 18, 2016
Page 2 of 2
A project that qualifies for a 35% density bonus is also eligible for three regulatory concessions
and/or incentives from the City. The staff report identify only two — parking and height. How-
ever, these aren't the concessions required by DBL. Reduced parking is allowed under other
City policies and is not required under DBL. The increased height is needed to physically build
the bonus, so it is required in addition to the incentives and/or concessions required by DBL.
Consequently, the project is still eligible for three incentives and/or concessions.
The concern that the project has too little commercial space is difficult for me to understand
because I am unaware of any standards or guidelines for the minimum commercial space in a
mixed use project. If there were such standards or guidelines, the project sponsor could ask that
they be waived as one of the DBL concessions. If that were the case, I would encourage you to
approve this concession.
The concern that the project does not conform with the spirit of the LUCE and General Plan is
equally confusing to me. I was under the impression the projects like 22 Chorro were specifi-
cally encouraged by the new LUCE. If the project is taller or denser than Planning Commis-
sioners had in mind for the site when they recommended the new LUCE, the greater height and
density are allowed by DBL. Even if they weren't, the project sponsor could ask for deviations
from the LUCE as a concession under DBL.
In conclusion, I encourage you to accept that the project conforms with applicable ordinances,
when combined with state density bonus law. I also encourage you to approve the project as
presented.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Si cc; .1 ,
Gerald L. Rioux
Executive Director
X:\Advocacy\22 Chorro PC 2016-08-24.doc