HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, MarxCOUNCILMEETING: .2-2-H rtr_%.C1VCV
ITEM NO,: - - CO- - -- FEB 0 3 2017
From: Jan Marx [
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 7:20 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: 22 Chorro--agenda correspondence
Dear City Council,
Because I voted to approve 22 Chorro on the developer's appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project-- before
three of you were elected to City Council --I thought sharing my reasoning with you might be helpful, as you consider yet another
appeal of this controversial project, this time from the ARC's decision.
Basically, as our City Attorney advised Council in open session when we considered the appeal from the Planning Commission,
changes in state law have made infill projects with affordable housing such as 22 Chorro not only exempt from CEQA, but have
effectively undermined city council's discretion to deny such projects. These changes to the Government Code (the California Density
Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act both found in the California Government Code, §§ 65915 — 65918 and 65580 — 65589.8)
have severely reduced the amount of discretion of city councils have to reject projects which provide affordable housing. They
entitle a developer who provides affordable housing to extra density, and require a city to waive development standards to allow for
the actual construction of those additional units. In addition, they allow a developer of affordable housing to request concessions or
incentives. The public agency is required to grant the concession or incentive, unless it can make a finding based on objective facts
that the concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety or the physical environment, and there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact. Govt. Code § 65915(e).
I personally disagree with these state law changes, and am very concerned about the effect they might have on land use planning San
Luis Obispo, but as they applied to 22 Chorro, I could not in good faith ignore them. Besides having the draconian result of requiring
approval of such projects unless council makes these factual findings, violations of the general plan, policies or design guidelines are
specifically called out by these laws as not qualifying as "specific adverse impacts." So, Council could not have legally rejected 22
Chorro on the basis of traffic safety concerns because the LUCE EIR included traffic studies stating that Foothill, Broad and Chorro
could handle increased traffic resulting from mixed use housing at those intersections. The developer's request for a parking reduction
concession also could not legally be turned down because the potential overflow parking problem does not present a safety impact and
can be mitigated by the neighborhood creating a parking district. The Planning Commission's decision to deny the project, while
responsive to neighbors' legitimate concerns, simply ignored these changes in state law. In my opinion, Council could not have denied
the appeal without denying the affordable housing developer's statutory rights and contravening State law.
I hope that any design decisions you make as you consider this appeal will not unreasonably delay the project or reduce the amount of
affordable housing.
Thank you for your service to the City,
Jan Marx, former Mayor of San Luis Obispo
Please reply to