HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2017 Item 6, LopesCOUNCIL MEETING: KI:CEIVED
ITEM NO.: FEB 0 71017
CITY
From: James Lopes [
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:07 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.or >
Subject: Re: Agenda: 22 Chorro appeal
Place in Agenda Correspondence:
RE: February 7, 2017 City Council Agenda - Item 6: Appeal of 22 Chorro
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
I believe that the City Council may actually require that the applicant's request for a density bonus be allowed,
but by meeting, not waiving or exempting, the project from zoning standards such as height and parking. It
appears that a development project may be required to be consistent with zoning standards, without exceptions,
if the requested density bonus can be feasibly met within those constraints - see Govt Code 65915(f)
below. This section of the density bonus "law" only applies to therg oss residential density (units per acre), not
to the number of bedrooms or size of the units. If the City Council wishes to reduce the height to the required
35 feet, or reduce the massing, and the density bonus can be accommodated by a reduction in the number of
bedrooms and size of units, then it has the prerogative to both meet the density bonus request and deny the
requested exception to the zoning regulations if smaller -scale units will provide the affordable housing costs -
see Government Code 65915(d)(1)(A) below.
Government Code 65915(f): "For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a density
increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density as of the date of
application by the applicant to the city, county, or city and county, or, if elected by the applicant,
a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in density."
Government Code 65915(d): "(1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b)
may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the specific incentives or
concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this section, and may request a meeting with
the city, county, or city and county. The city, county, or city and county shall grant the
concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county
makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs,
as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to
be set as specified in subdivision (c)."
I ask that your Council carefully review the State policies concerning the CEQA categorical exemption of infill
projects. The traffic impacts of the proposed project have not been studied or identified, due to the infill CEQA
exemption. I believe that the CEQA Guidelines state that the exemption may not be granted if there is a fair
argument that a significant (traffic) impact will result, for which in this case a traffic study should be
prepared. If mitigation measures or project alternatives are required, then the exemption may not be granted. I
think that a fair argument has been made by project opponents that traffic impacts will be significant at the
project entry, and parking overflow (due to a major reduction in on-site parking), will significantly reduce the
safety of nearby streets.
Lastly, I believe that the City Council can require design measures that relate to meeting zoning standards, such
as parking and height requirements. I urge you to uphold the appeal and modify, or have the ARC modify, this
project to be within the 35 -foot height limit, with parking sufficient to meet all its needs, with a first floor
devoted to retail in conformance with the site's zoning, with R-1 compatible setback along Chorro and the
customary setback of similar properties along Foothill, and other measures to make it compatible with its
neighbors.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
James Lopes
San Luis Obispo, CA