Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/10/2018 Item 2, Cooper From:Allan Cooper < To:Codron, Michael; Davidson, Doug; Council_All; CityClerk Subject:Zoning Regulations Update Attachments:104_10_18...lettertocouncilrezoning.pdf Dear Michael and Doug - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the City Council? This letter is addressing their review of the Zoning Regulations Update and the eight policy questions being presented to them at their Tuesday, April 10, 2018 meeting. Thanks! - Allan 1 To:SLO City Council, Michael Codron and Doug Davidson Re:Zoning Regulation Update Study Session From:Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date:April 9, 2018 Honorable Mayor Harmon and Council Members -  You are starting to consider changes in our zoning regulations that would virtually pave the way for developers to build higher density housing and perhaps taller buildings in all parts of the city. Several of staff's proposals presented to you include extremely small living units both in our downtown but also in our backyards. These units would most likely not be provided with adequate parking. The parking impacts would spill over into all of our neighborhoods. Traffic congestion throughout the City will become untenable. Moreover, we are not convinced that smaller units will necessarily be more affordable “by design”. A case in point is The Academy located at 22 Chorro where two-bedroom units accommodating four beds are currently renting at $1,350 to $1,450 per bed. We are also concerned that this is called a “study session” whereby no direction or action can be provided, yet you will be making policy decisions at this study session by answering “yes” or “no” to eight questions. We are, nevertheless, listing those eight questions below followed in some instances by some analysis. This will then be followed by our recommendations. Some would say that Items 1, 2, 7 and 8 are requirements per the California Department of Housing and Community Development as part of a certified housing element. All municipalities, regardless of whether they are a general law city or charter city, must apparently abide by them. This includes parking requirements and other items that effect ADU developments. These come from a series of housing packages that were signed by the Governor last year. As a result, local control has been slowly eroding by the State Legislature looking for a “one-size” fits all approach. Our City Attorney and others would like you to believe that our “hands are tied”. However this is not necessarily true. There are cities all over California who are currently fighting, through lawsuits, to maintain some vestige of local control in the face of these State mandates. But besides suing the State, SLO has another recourse and that is to prove that increasing density can empirically lead to unmitigable traffic congestion. You, City staff and the City’s traffic engineers have been disinclined to explore this option because it would involve more "traffic studies" which staff feels are either unwarranted or too costly. Some of us believe that this would be money well-spent if it could slow down this "stack and pack" approach to attaining the unattainable, "affordable housing". 1. Revise the density calculations as discussed for simplification and to continue encouraging smaller housing units? Analysis: Define density as a dwelling regardless whether the dwelling is a studio, one-bedroom or more. Currently R-2 is 12 density units per acre thereby limiting the maximum potential for a 6,000 sq.ft. lot to one three- bedroom unit, one two-bedroom unit, two one-bedroom units or three studio apartments.  In order to increase density in multiple-family zones, staff is recommending allowing a minimum of two two-bedroom units for a 6,000 sq.ft. lot, where only one would have been allowed, three two-bedroom units in R-3 (18 units/ acre) where only two two-bedroom units are currently allowed and four two- bedroom units in R-4 (24 units/acre) where only three have been allowed.  Revise the one-bedroom dwelling units under 600 sq.ft. (as opposed to under 1,000 sq.ft.) to be reduced from 0.66 unit to the 0.50 unit (now only currently applying to studio apartments) and eliminate the studio apartment. The UBC requires a minimum 150 sq.ft. for an "efficiency" dwelling unit.  So, looking at item "a" on the list, a studio apartment (though this category is being eliminated) could be as small as 150 sq.ft. and up to 450 sq.ft. using the 0.50 density value. One-bedroom units between 600 – 1,000 square feet would continue to count as 0.66 density units. Response: We oppose this if increased density is not linked to increasing the parking requirements because this will lead to spill over parking and unmitigable traffic congestion. 2. Allow flexible density downtown by removing density limits from smaller (600 sq. ft.) units? This would also include applying the downtowns development standards to the Upper Monterey corridor (to the railroad trestle) and bringing back the corresponding Ordinance Overlay Zone map as part of this Zoning Regulations Update. Analysis: Eliminating density requirements downtown (i.e., 36 units/acre) altogether when the units are smaller than 600 square feet. If the units are larger than 600 sq.ft. then the 36 units/acre rule would continue to apply. Within an allowed building envelope (or mass), the ground floor would not count as it is assumed to be commercial. If you assume a 10,000 sq. ft. footprint, then the building sits on 0.230 of an acre.  The density limit of 36 du/ ac is 8.26 units (for units over 600 sq.ft.) on this 0.230 acre. We are assuming an 80% efficiency factor allowing for mechanical, wall thickness and circulation. Let’s say each unit is 1,000 sq.ft., then these 8 units could all fit on the second floor. But let’s add, for example, two more floors comprised of 600 sq.ft. units for a 50 foot tall building. The total could result in 27 additional units over the 8 units currently permitted. However, an FAR of 3.75 for a 50 foot tall building would limit the overall square footage of the building to 37,500 sq.ft. So the remaining square feet above the second floor would be 17,500 sq.ft. allowing for 23 (not 27) additional units over the 8 currently permitted. So, the proposal would nearly quadruple the density, with or without parking provided on site and with added incentive of a parking reduction. What’s not mentioned here, but what is clearly implied, are other “trade offs” or incentives that will be offered developers if they agree to incorporate smaller than the 600 square foot units into their projects. And those incentives will be fast tracked approval processes, reduced setbacks and taller buildings. Response: We oppose this if this results in taller buildings downtown, increased traffic congestion and/or if this leads to further depleting the availability of parking downtown (e.g. in parking garages and elsewhere). Depleting the availability of parking will continue to discourage shoppers and tourists from visiting our downtown and will negatively impact our economy. Save Our Downtown is also skeptical of the concept of “affordable by design”. The Academy at 22 Chorro Street is a dormitory style project comprised of units that will be renting for $1,350 to $1,450 per bed. This is not affordable. But this is “stack and pack”. Finally, continuing the downtown development standards to Upper Monterey would be a problem for adjoining residential developments which flank upper Palm and Higuera Streets.  3. Regulate rooftop uses by establishing setbacks, hours, size limits, and other standards to balance the use and enjoyment of rooftop uses with the privacy of residential settings? Response: We support this! However, rooftop decks should not be incentivized as a form of public open space. We believe that rooftop decks should not qualify as one of the several community benefits that currently earn the developer the right to build above 50 feet. 4. Whether current alcohol outlet practices and the incorporation of conditions of approval as standards are adequate to address safety concerns downtown? Response: We support this but we want to extend the “Public Convenience and Necessity” (PCN) policy to restaurants with bars. We see that the City is revisiting “tattoo parlors” and setting limits on the possible location of stores selling cannabis, yet there is no mention of the much greater negative impacts on public health and safety associated with the proliferation of alcohol outlets downtown. Alcohol-related crimes committed downtown (i.e., Dashboard’s Neighborhood 5) are unacceptably high and have been increasing over the past 6 years. We urge the City to expand the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits” to include a work program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578. Additionally, we are urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: “alcohol outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations”. The City does not require the applicant to fill out a “Submittal Checklist” nor has it codified a “Public Convenience and Necessity Policy”. Without the latter two requirements, all decisions approving or denying outlets for both on-site and off-site alcohol sales are purely discretionary, too permissive and sometimes inconsistent or arbitrary. Instead grant a Type 47 license through the CUP process if it is proven that doing so would not “cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located.” Moreover, the Police Department should recommend denial of an applicant’s request for a Type 47 license if the crime rate within that census district is increasing. Grant a CUP for any restaurant that wants to sell alcoholic beverages (i.e., any Type 41 or 47 alcohol outlet) on the condition that the City can exercise local control over where alcohol outlets may operate. The use permit process for bars, night clubs, and late-night restaurants serving alcohol should require a finding that the alcohol outlet use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity. To more fully implement Policy 4.328, the amended Zoning Regulations will include specific criteria for use permits by incorporating the late-night alcohol standard conditions of approval (developed during the Alcohol Outlet Amendments process) into the Ordinance. 5. Whether to incorporate an opportunity for tiny homes on wheels as part of the Zoning Regulations Update? Analysis: Tiny homes on wheels are considered Recreational Vehicles (RV) according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and regulated as motor vehicles by the State Department of Motor Vehicles. In response to community and Council interest in allowing tiny homes in the City, staff has focused on how existing regulations might be revised to accommodate tiny homes on wheels in backyards of single-family homes. Response: We are not supporting this. Again, there are unmitigable parking impacts associated with this. It would be better if these tiny homes could be concentrated in one location (as has been done with mobile home parks) where parking is available. 6. Remove specific barriers to ADU construction? Frontage improvements and/or impact fees? Analysis: Key provisions included eliminating the requirement for parking and allowing existing garages to be converted to ADUs without replacement of the garage for the primary unit. Another key provision was a prohibition on requiring fire sprinklers for the ADU if the primary unit on the property doesn’t have fire sprinklers. Furthermore, the City has reduced the development impact fees for ADUs and is allowing a single water meter on R-1 properties with an ADU. Explore options to reduce the extent of required frontage improvements triggered by ADUs – curb, gutter, sidewalks, and ADA driveway upgrades. Response: We support ADU’s if they are located on owner-occupied properties and particularly if they are located downtown because they will increase housing density without increasing height. We are opposed to eliminating parking spaces to make way for ADU’s but we concede this might be in violation of State law. We are encouraging the City to maintain the same incentives for accessory dwelling units on non-conforming lots as are available to conforming lots. This will allow greater housing density Downtown (where non-conforming lots prevail) without increasing building heights. 7. Consolidate and streamline the review process for more simplicity, as outlined in the report? Analysis: No public input at administrative hearings except when a use permit is being considered. All ARC and CHC decisions will be relegated to “recommendations” to either the Community Development Director or the PC. Only the CCD or the PC will have the purview to make the final decision unless this decision is appealed to the City Council. ARC will see more projects at the conceptual review stage when there is little detail available relative to floor plans or landscaping. The ARC will no longer provide input on environmental review as this will be the sole purview of the PC. ARC and CHC review will take place concurrently so that the ARC will no longer receive the CHC’s recommendations. Only projects larger than 10,000 sq.ft. or more than 5 units will be considered by the Planning Commission (unless appealed). The Tree Committee will no longer review tree removal within the public right-of-way. As is currently the case, tree removal in new developments will remain outside their purview. Response: The residents of San Luis Obispo oppose this because they do not want to be deprived of their prerogative to comment on any projects that come before the City. Nor do the residents want most final decisions to be made by the Community Development Director or Administrative Hearing Officer. We oppose limiting the ARC to conceptual review and barring the Tree Committee from commenting on tree removals in the public right-of-way. In fact, we would like to expand the Tree Committee’s purview to include tree removals in new developments. And we are concerned that the ARC will no longer hear the Cultural Heritage Committee’s recommendations. With the exception of the Planning Commission, this will limit the scope of each advisory body. Finally, this will further result in each advisory body becoming more insulated from one another. 8. Whether parking requirements should be adjusted to reflect the City’s multi-modal objectives in conjunction with revised and modified parking reduction standards? Analysis: Parking requirements should be based on gross floor area rather than a breakdown of the use of the space. Twenty percent (20%) of all trips should be for bicycles. Includes a statement that provides the Director the ability to require more bicycle parking than otherwise required. Parking reductions for small projects and changes in use in existing buildings could be approved by a Director’s Action while parking reductions for projects requiring a use permit would be reviewed by the decision-making body. These would include reducing the parking requirements to be more consistent with ITE standards, lowering the level of review for parking reductions, and relying on project- specific parking studies to determine the proper type and percentage of the reduction. Response: We oppose this! The public should have a voice in determining where parking reductions are appropriate. Anecdotal information provided by residents is often a useful supplement to project-specific parking studies. The following zoning-related issues are not being addressed as “topics requiring discussion and policy direction” at your April 10, 2018 Council Study Session. However, they are also of singular importance to us. 1. Compatibility and Edge Conditions Analysis: Direction on use conversions: The Office (O) zone currently functions as a mixed-use zone, allowing for a range of residential and nonresidential uses. Yet, limited standards regulate the conversion of residential uses to nonresidential uses in the Office zone, or to allow multifamily housing adjacent to an R-1 or R-2 zone, which has the potential to lead to surprising outcomes for neighboring residents. Response: The text fails to address Downtown. We are suggesting that Downtown and other commercial zones be included since they often border residential zones. In fact, design standards should be adopted to leave no question whether or how they are to be met. “S” Zone overlays should be considered for Tourist/Commercial or Downtown/Commercial adjoining residential neighborhoods. Because of the development pressures occurring there presently, there should be a Special Consideration (S) Zone overlaid onto the C-R and C-D zones that are separated by San Luis Creek from the R-3-H Dana Street residents. The Dana Street neighborhood deserves the same considerations given to the San Luis Drive neighborhood. Explore other areas that qualify for the same overlay zone including, but not limited to, commercial development bordering the Upper Higuera Street, Lincoln Street, Rougeot Place and Rockview Place neighborhoods. 2. SLO Chamber of Commerce Housing Task Force “Height for Housing” Response: The residents of San Luis Obispo do not want to give up their right to address building heights no matter where these buildings may be located. Therefore we oppose the Chamber’s 50 foot “by right” rule where discussion on height is taken off the table. The residents of San Luis Obispo do not want buildings to be taller than 35 feet (or 2-3 stories in height). A 50 foot building should not be located immediately next to a 1-2 story building, particularly a low-rise, historically-listed building as there could be no appropriate visual transition between the two buildings. We question the legality of the Chamber’s enforcement mechanisms that would have to be put in place requiring owner-occupied purchase agreements and residents of San Luis Obispo County purchase agreements. According to a March 27, 2018 legal memorandum prepared by Best, Best & Krieger LLP, it is legally difficult for the City to impose on private developers owner-occupancy rules on housing developments. 3. March 27, 2018 legal memorandum prepared by Best, Best & Krieger LLP Response: The residents of San Luis Obispo do not want the City to abandon our high-occupancy (in excess of six or more adults) residential use regulations for R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods predicated on the legal interpretation that these regulations may violate the right of privacy guaranteed by the California Constitution. Losing these regulations will adversely impact available on-street parking in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods and this could only be partially mitigated through the establishment of parking districts. Lacking high- occupancy use regulations, rents will go up, the neighborhoods will deteriorate and the proportion of owner-occupied housing will continue to decline because owner-occupants, seeking quieter neighborhoods elsewhere, will either sell their homes or rent them out. This will inevitably lead to an increase in the cost of housing in San Luis Obispo. We recommend a "fair share" (so long as it is "fair" to the City) MOU between the City and Cal Poly regarding Cal Poly's financial obligations to pay for upgrades to our infrastructure such as traffic upgrades, expansion impacts to wastewater service, fire response, emergency response and mass transit. What should be "off the table" is the City entering into any agreement to increase Cal Poly's share of our water as the City will need all the water it can procure given prospects for increasing droughts in the near future. We recommend an MOU between the City and Cal Poly attempting to work out a housing plan and phasing commitment linked to enrollments similar to the Santa Cruz agreement. We recommend a plan whereby campus property is leased to a private company who then builds housing for use by a variety of campus-related people. This could accelerate the construction of more on- campus housing. We recommend adopting an ordinance, like Berkeley's, that establishes operating standards for all "mini-dorms" defined to mean residential properties occupied by six or more adults (this is assuming that we lose our high occupancy use regulations). The caveat to this is that these standards may be hard to enforce.   This legal memorandum recommended that the City amend its zoning regulations to permit the construction of dormitory type housing (i.e., housing rented out on a per-bed basis) and located preferably near Cal Poly. This is de facto already happening. However, Cal Poly students (and many of the Cuesta College students) come from affluent families (Cal Poly is ranked near the top of all universities in terms of family affluence) and they would prefer to live, and can afford to live, in single-family residences. 4. Draft White Paper - Flexible Density Downtown Response: The residents do not want height or density transfers to be introduced into the Downtown Core. We disagree with the policy that the transfer of density credits not be applied to non-contiguous downtown properties. If density transfers are implemented, properties within the Downtown Core should only be able to transfer their density credits to properties outside the Downtown Core thereby maintaining the overall height of downtown buildings at 2 to 3 stories. A height minimum precluding one- story structures downtown should not apply when the lot is contiguous to a one-story historic property  5. Draft White Paper - Re-Envisioning Personal Mobility Response: Nothing in the Housing Accountability Act shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program. Therefore, if “exceptions to development standards” or “easing of parking standards and building setbacks” result in traffic congestion using objective and quantifiable criteria then the project should be modified or denied. This verbiage should be included in the Housing Element to guide input from staff, the Council and Advisory Bodies. Establish a minimum pro rata square foot requirement for the underlying zone enabling the mixed-use to qualify for parking reductions and other incentives. Parking requirements should be based on how bedrooms are used and on the size of bedrooms because large bedrooms can accommodate more occupants. We agree that bedroom count (and perhaps size) should be the only way to calculate density.  Predicating future car parking supply (see Table 1 “Zoning Regulation Parking Options/Exceptions”) on the targeted mode split of 50% auto trip usage, 20% bicycle trip usage, 18% walking (or motorcycle, golf cart, Segway, scooter or skateboard usage) and 12% transit usage assumes that nearly •all 6,700 residents holding jobs in San Luis Obispo, •all 14,300 Cal Poly and Cuesta College students living off campus and in San Luis Obispo and •all of the remaining 19,300 residents who neither work in San Luis Obispo (but may be working in outlying communities) nor are students will be relying on bicycles, walking or public transit to get around. The sum total for this group is 40,300. Relying on automobile usage will be •the 24,300 workers (source: SLOCOG) commuting daily into San Luis Obispo from outlying communities, •the 2,700 transient occupants who will be spending a night or two in a motel or hotel in San Luis Obispo, •the hundreds more staying in Airbnb’s, •the approximately 1,100 out-of-town shoppers and day visitors, •the 5,700 residents 65 years of age or older who may have mobility issues due to age or infirmity, •the 1,570 pre-school children, •an unknown number of residents who are employed in outlying communities and •the 3,950 Cal Poly and Cuesta College students living in outlying communities (source: Cal Poly Masterplan DEIR). The sum total for this group is 39,320. So roughly follows the 50-50 split. What is not taken into account here is San Luis Obispo’s aggressive promotion of tourism, new hotel/motel construction and the growth in hospitality-related, low-paying jobs. Unlike the current cap on housing production, our daytime population is growing far in excess of 1% per year and this will only increase our reliance on the use of the automobile. Secondly, where does the projected increase in service vehicle/truck traffic factor in (i.e., Amazon, hospitality, special event, restaurant, bar-related and personal service deliveries)? Thirdly, current statistics would indicate that San Luis Obispo residents may not be so easily weaned of the convenience of personalized transportation particularly as electric powered cars become more affordable. Ninety percent of all households (17,157) in San Luis Obispo presently own 2 cars or more (7.8% own 5 or more cars!). In 2015, 67% of commuters drove alone, 7.8% carpooled, 7.5% walked, 3% used public transit and 9% bicycled to work . 1 Even if the total number of vehicle trips decline over time, personalized transportation is essential for family-related grocery shopping, shopping for home improvements, medical emergencies and weekend excursions. And fourthly, the Zoning Regulation Parking Options/Exceptions found in Table 1 is proposed to apply to all new development. It is our belief that for the reasons stated above, all hospitality and commercial development as well as multi- generational housing should be exempted from these provisions. 6. Draft White Paper - Implementing the Climate Action Plan Response: This White Paper is seriously flawed. No doubt it is packed full of good intentions. But voluntary guidelines that would be “enforced” by discretionary review bodies and voluntary incentives limited by their application to only the PD overlay and C-D zones is “business as usual” in a world that is perilously close to (if not already past) the “tipping point” - in a world where an irreversible carbon feedback loop is looming nearer and nearer. We should be calling for mandatory, not voluntary, measures to address climate change.  see: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/san-luis-obispo-ca/#category_transportation1 This is compounded by the fact that the bulk of the emphasis in this paper is being placed on transportation when nearly half of all CO2 emissions come from the building sector (compared to one third of all CO2 emissions being attributed to transportation). Instead of emphasizing a stronger commitment to inter-urban mass transit this paper focusses on ways to wean residents, commuters and tourists from using private automobiles. How? By eliminating parking spaces. However, a rapidly increasing demand for car parking along with urban sprawl will be exacerbated - not mitigated - by the arrival of the autonomous vehicle and the electric car because both will make long commutes as well as vacation trips safer, more enjoyable and more affordable. Increasing building densities is not a sustainable solution. The argument is that doing so will prevent urban sprawl but both are currently happening. Increasing both downtown density and sprawl will overtax our infrastructure and our biome carrying capacity (California’s ecological footprint is 14 times its carrying capacity). The current aggressive promotion of tourism, new hotel/ motel construction and growth in jobs must be stemmed. The City averages 2,700 overnight visitors in motels and hotels plus 100’s more visitors in Airbnb’s. Add to this an unknown number of day visitors plus some 24,300 out-of-town workforce commuters and our daytime population hovers around 75,700+. Unlike the current cap on housing production, this daytime population is growing far in excess of 1% per year. Finally, there is no mention of water availability and water conservation, no mention of wildlife and open space protection, no mention of prime agricultural lands and no mention of the role trees and landscaping play in carbon sequestration. These diminishing resources play a critical role in our adapting to, or even surviving, climate change. Climate change is the most urgent issue confronting us today and we are falling far short of what we should be doing. Time is of the essence. We have reached 410 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. Irreversible carbon-cycle feedbacks set in at 450 ppm. “Business as usual” means we will be reaching 450 ppm of CO2 within the next 10 years. The options for avoiding catastrophic climate and weather changes are almost too late. And, the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has not only to be taken by each and every individual but also by local & state government. Therefore, what should San Luis Obispo, at the urging of its Mayor and City Council, do - that it’s not now presently doing - to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% over the next 10 years?  SLO must require all future private and public development meet the 2020 “carbon neutral” challenge and attain or exceed nothing less than the Platinum Level for LEED certification. Cambridge, Massachusetts has set up a Net Zero Task Force to explore the possibilities for Cambridge moving towards becoming a net zero energy community. This task force was set up because a citizens group created a petition for all new construction in Cambridge to become net zero and flooded the Planning Board and City Council meetings with advocates for net zero. The city’s response was to set up an independent task force that includes leaders in the field of energy conservation and renewables, and then supported it with paid consultants. Moreover, the City, like many other California cities, should: 1) require that developers install cool roofs and cool paving;  2) require developers to install photovoltaics on new roofs where appropriate;  3) provide rebates for planting drought tolerant trees that sequester high amounts of carbon and discourage the unnecessary removal of existing trees and riparian habitat to make way for new development;  4) require the purchase of “green power”; 5) set up micro-grids powered by wind or concentrated solar thermal with storage;  6) require all developers to install vegetated bioswales and retention basins to recharge our aquifers;  7) require developers to provide some form of rainwater harvesting (rooftop or surface); 8) reinstate SLO’s water demand offset program;   9) implement the expansion of rebate programs to include, but not be limited to, the following types of water demand reductions: hot water recirculation, point-of-use water heaters, toilet leak detection systems, dry toilets and grey water systems; 10) cap its population growth (including Cal Poly’s enrollment growth); and 11) cap or slow down its commercial growth particularly in the hospitality areas of food service, sales and lodging as these by type and use are among the highest water and energy consumers (see: https://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/buildings/building- program-and-schedule). The building sector is responsible for nearly half (44.6%) of U.S. CO2 emissions. By comparison, transportation accounts for only 34.3% of CO2 emissions and industry just 21.1%. One key way to reduce and ultimately phase out the CO2 emissions produced by the building sector is by transforming the way buildings are designed, built, and operated. With regards to Goal BLD 2: New Construction Energy Conservation: Encourage and incentivize new development to exceed minimum CALGreen requirements: It is clearly not sufficient to confine incentives for exceeding Title 24 energy efficiency standards to only planned development overlay and C-D zones. And new development should be mandated - not incentivized - to install energy-efficient appliances as well as cool roofs and cool paving surfaces. Similarly, renewable energy generation and/or solar power for certain residential projects should be mandated, not incentivized. The implementation of these goals should not fall under the Community Design Guidelines as guidelines can be easily ignored or overlooked. The City has adopted several development regulations that exceed CALGreen energy conservation requirements, such as requiring buildings taller than 50 feet in the C-D zone to meet minimum energy conservation requirements. The City has also established incentives in Development Regulations that allow higher maximum building heights for projects that exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 30 percent. However, tall buildings are inherently energy inefficient because proportionately more of their surface area is exposed to the sun and wind. Tall buildings use almost twice as much energy per square foot as low-rise structures. Tall buildings require more steel and concrete, contain more embodied energy and are less sustainable than low rise buildings built largely of wood. Concrete is 10 times more GHG-intensive than wood. In low-rise buildings the rooftop supply available for solar energy is inevitably more in line with the energy demands of the building than it is for mid- or high-rises. Most buildings that generate their own energy do it with solar photovoltaics (PV). If we assume that a building has only its roof area available for mounting PV, then a single-story building is much more likely to achieve net-zero than a high-rise. Getting to net-zero is extremely difficult for buildings of more than four stories. If the project includes energy-intensive data centers, labs, or other spaces, the challenge gets tougher. 7. Save Our Downtown Promotes Other, More Effective, Strategies to Increase Affordable Housing Save Our Downtown wants to increase the percentages of affordable housing required in return for setback and/or parking reductions (but not for increased building height) by increasing 5% very low income to 10% by increasing 10% low income to 20% by increasing 15% market rate housing to 30% Introducing some form of residential rent stabilization modeled after, for example, the Cities of Richmond and Mountain View. Rent control has been losing the public perception battle. This circumstance comes as no surprise given that corporate money and profits align with property owners and real estate investors. San Diego poverty law attorney Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi provides a concise rebuttal to some of the most common public perceptions about rent control, what she calls the "myths" of rent control:  Myth 1: Rent control is illegal.  Fact: Rent control is legal and an effective tool to address housing affordability. Myth 2: Rent control decreases the housing stock by dis-incentivizing new housing construction. Fact: Rent control has no impact on new construction because it does not apply to new construction. Myth 3: Rent control causes the rental stock to decrease because rent control units will be converted to condominiums. Fact: Ordinances restricting condominium conversions protect the stock of rental units under rent control. Myth 4: Rent control hurts tenants. Fact: Rent control helps tenants. Rent control studies are funded by real estate developments, investors, and corporate apartment owner associations, and their own data supports the effectiveness of rent control. Myth 5: Rent control is not needed, building market rate units will solve the housing crisis. Fact: Building market rate units without effective tenant protection ordinances exacerbates the housing crisis.   Myth 6: Rent control incentivizes tenants to remain tenants, rather than become homeowners invested in their communities. Fact: Society has traditionally favored homeowners over tenants primarily because homeowners intend to reside in and better their community, and rent control furthers these goals. To match these "myths," in her article, Ijadi-Maghsoodi provides seven recommendations for additional measures to stabilize rental housing and protect families. For Ijadi-Maghsoodi's reasoning and authority for her conclusions, please read the source article below titled “Demystifying Rent Control” _________________ Demystifying Rent Control Rent control can help solve California’s housing affordability and homelessness crisis by decreasing displacement and protecting the rights and dignity of working families, the elderly, and long-term tenants. To demystify rent control in California, here are seven rent control myths followed by seven anti-poverty tenant protection ordinances cities can implement. Articles and studies from newspapers to academic journals warn the public against the havoc and devastation caused by rent control ordinances. However, it is not tenants and community based organizations that are funding these articles and studies, it is real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations. For decades, tenants and community based organizations across California have worked tirelessly to enact rent control ordinances to decrease displacement and protect the rights and dignity of working families, the elderly, and long-term tenants. Tenant advocates continue to direct their limited resources to local initiatives and ballot measures, not to fund studies, articles, and lawsuits. Myth 1: Rent control is illegal. Fact: Rent control is legal and an effective tool to address housing affordability. California state law does not prohibit the enactment of new rent control ordinances.  Since 1976, California courts have upheld rent control ordinances. When a rent control ordinance is challenged, courts analyze the ordinance to determine if it is “reasonably calculated to eliminate excessive rents and at the same time provide landlords with a just and reasonable return on their property.”[1] Since 2016, rent control ordinances have been successfully enacted in Richmond and Mountain View, and rent control campaigns are underway in Long Beach, Glendale, Santa Cruz, Pasadena, San Diego, Inglewood, Sacramento, Santa Rosa, and Concord.[2] Despite the clear legal standard, investors, real estate developers, and corporate apartment owner associations file lawsuits each year challenging the constitutionality of rent control ordinances. In 2016 and 2017, the California Apartment Association[3] filed challenges to new rent control ordinances in Richmond and Mountain View.[4] In an attempt to avoid a decrease in profits, property owners sought a restraining order to prevent the new Richmond ordinance from going into effect. The court denied the restraining order, holding that the harm the corporate apartment owners associations alleged – possible lost profits – was not sufficient. The California Apartment Association dismissed its remaining case against Richmond’s rent control ordinance. Both lawsuits were unsuccessful. Tenants in both cities are benefiting from rent control ordinances while corporate apartment owners and their investors continue to receive a fair return on investment. Tenants and community based organizations across California are effectively utilizing rent control against increasing housing instability caused by the lack of affordable housing and the loss of redevelopment agencies, and to prevent tenant displacement posed by new commercial and corporate development in cities like Inglewood.[5] Myth 2: Rent control decreases the housing stock by disincentivizing new housing construction.  Fact: Rent control has no impact on new construction because it does not apply to new construction.  State law prohibits rent control ordinances from applying to new housing units and requires rent control ordinances include vacancy decontrol.[6] Rent control does not disincentivize new housing construction because new construction is not covered by rent control. Arguments against rent control on grounds that it disincentivizes building are legally inaccurate, misleading, and meritless. Nevertheless, real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations continue to propagate this argument. The enactment and enforcement of rent control ordinances have no impact on development. In fact, the law banning vacancy control and rent control from applying to new construction, the 1995 Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, was a political compromise reached by the wealthy developers and investors who continue to propagate the myth that rent control has a chilling effect on new development. While rent control does not have a chilling effect on new construction, it does have a chilling effect on the ability of real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations to gouge hard working families, the elderly, and others who rely on the rental market. Rent control allows corporate apartment owners and their investors to receive a fair return on investment, not a windfall in profits. In cities that enacted rent control in the 1970s and 1980s, units constructed over the last thirty to forty years have been exempt from rent control, and cities with more recently enacted rent control ordinances exempt units constructed in the last 20 years: • Los Angeles exempted from rent control are structures built after 1978 (L.A.M.C. Section 151.28) • San Francisco exempts structures built after 1979 (S.F. Administrative Code Ch. 37A) • Berkeley exempts units built after 1980 (B.M.C. Section 13.76.050) • Richmond exempts units constructed after 1995 (R.M.C. Section 11.100.070) • Mountain View exempts units constructed after 1995 (C.S.F.R.A. Section 1720) • East Palo Alto exempts units constructed after 1988 (E.P.A. Mun. Code Ch. 14.04) • Oakland exempts units constructed after 1983 (O.M.C. Section 8.22.070) Myth 3: Rent control causes the rental stock to decrease because rent control units will be converted to condominiums. Fact: Ordinances restricting condominium conversions protect the stock of rental units under rent control. The loss of all rental units through condominium conversions is not the inevitable, impending consequence of rent control, despite the argument put forth by real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations. Cities have the power to enact ordinances restricting condominium conversions. Limiting condominium conversions effectively prevents the removal of rental units under rent control from the rental market. Cities across the State of California have enacted and enforced condominium conversion ordinances to maintain a stock of rental units.[7] These ordinances effectively recognize the need of century-old apartment complex owners to sell units when the cost of maintaining or upgrading an entire apartment complex becomes unsustainable, while protecting the rental housing stock. Note that there is no standard definition of a condominium conversion.[8] Despite the common use of the phrase, converting a rental unit to a condominium is not a simple, overnight process that has the power to decimate the rental housing stock the moment a rent control ordinance is enacted. Instead, to convert a multi-unit rental complex into individually owned condominiums, a complex legal process must be followed. In addition to abiding by local ordinances, the process requires, at a minimum, providing tenants with notice of certain protections including the right to purchase, obtaining state approval to market residential units, a recording of a declaration of conditions, covenants, and restrictions, a recording of the subdivision or parcel map for purposes of creating a condominium, a recording of the condominium plan, and the conveyance of the unit.[9] Myth 4: Rent control hurts tenants. Fact: Rent control helps tenants. Rent control studies are funded by real estate developments, investors, and corporate apartment owner associations, and their own data supports the effectiveness of rent control. A recent rent control study released in October 2017 found that rent control in San Francisco caused a $2.1 billion net benefit to tenants with tenants aged 40-65 benefitting most from rent control.[10] The study which is a Working Paper of the NBER Real Estate Institute, incorporated in 1920 with $116 million in assets and 2017 corporate sponsors AIG, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Vanguard, and JP Morgan Chase, concluded that rent control destroys rental housing stock and causes gentrification.[11] Another study, prepared for the California Apartment Association, concluded that rent control laws make low-income residents worse off and argue for a free market approach to addressing the growing housing affordability crisis.[12] The NBER study focused on San Francisco’s limited rent control ordinance which is applicable to apartment units constructed before 1980. In its analysis, the authors found that as of 2017, more of the half-century old units under rent control had been converted to condominiums than the newly constructed units not under rent control, resulting in a $5 billion loss to the rental housing market. However, not only were all of the units under rent control built more than a half-century ago, each unit was part of an apartment complex, adding to the cost of maintenance and upgrades, and increasing the likelihood of condominium conversion. If the age of the buildings under rent control were accounted for in the context of conversions, the tenant gain would be greater than $7.1 billion, creating a net gain to tenants of more than $2.1 billion. Building upon this finding, the authors conclude that the characteristic of rent control, rather than the characteristic of building age or the need for a stronger condominium conversion ordinance, was the factor that caused the condominium conversions. Since condominium conversions can lead to displacement and gentrification, the authors took their findings a step further, and declared that rent control was the cause of gentrification in San Francisco. However, the lack of affordable units is the factor at play in displacement, not local rent control ordinances. Without rent control, low-income, long-term tenants would have been displaced sooner and in greater numbers.[13] Myth 5: Rent control is not needed, building market rate units will solve the housing crisis. Fact: Building market rate units without effective tenant protection ordinances exacerbates the housing crisis.    Underlying anti-rent control sentiments is the premise that the housing crisis will be solved on its own through the free market system. For example, the NBER study held that any rent set by a rent control ordinance was “below market rent,” the free market’s reliance on supply and demand would lead to fair market rents, and rent control “forc[es] landlords to provide insurance against rent increases,” while the Beacon study held that rent control created “artificially low rents.”[14] Real estate investors, developers, and corporate apartment owner associations argue that if rent control were removed, the free market would lead to fair market rents that were both affordable to tenants and allowed for fair market returns to landlords. However, increasing the supply by infusing the market with market rate rentals does not lead to affordability. In fact, it worsens the affordability crisis and exacerbates displacement of low-income, long- term tenants.[15] In the early 2000s, New York City changed its housing policies changed from a rent-regulated system to a system intent on letting the free market fix its affordable housing and homelessness problem. Building market rate housing was not only ineffective at solving the housing crisis, it further exacerbated the crisis. The construction of market rate housing led to an influx of higher-income renters, and effectively displaced working families and low-income renters.[16] Affordable housing must not only be part of the solution, it must be the primary focus if cities are truly intent on solving housing instability, avoid displacement, and reducing homelessness. Corporate apartment owner associations, investors, and real estate developers profit from investing in property, allowing the property to gain value, and selling or leasing the property. Those profiting from the housing market, generally individuals who have obtained property through the generational transfer of wealth, are not receiving a fair return on investment, they are receiving a windfall in profits. Tenants are always at a disadvantage in the housing market, and rent control works to protect tenants by ensuring property owners receive a fair return on investment sufficient to effectively maintain units, instead of a windfall. Myth 6: Rent control incentivizes tenants to remain tenants, rather than become homeowners invested in their communities. Fact: Society has traditionally favored homeowners over tenants primarily because homeowners intend to reside in and better their community, and rent control furthers these goals. In the current housing climate, tenants that would have become home owners one or two decades ago are remaining tenants because they cannot afford to buy. Just as homeowners feel inclined to improve their communities, long-term tenants participate in their communities, enroll their children in local schools, and work to improve the health and safety of their neighborhoods. Rent control stabilizes communities, furthers long-term tenant participation by removing the risk that these tenants will be priced out of their units. Rent control is an effective tool to achieve the societal goal of community involvement that has been traditionally attributed only to homeowners. Myth 7: Rent control causes units to go into disarray. Fact: Rent control improves the quality of the rental housing stock. Landlords are legally obligated to maintain rental units, and rent control furthers tenants’ abilities to assert their legal rights. Rent control furthers tenants’ abilities to assert their existing legal rights. Landlords are legally responsible for maintaining rental units, repairing conditions in a timely manner, and complying with state and local building codes.[17] A local rent control ordinance allows tenants to assert their rights by petitioning for a decrease in rent if a landlord has failed to repair a condition, provide a legally required service, or correct a housing code violation. This is in addition to the rights and remedies a tenant has under state law. In addition to rent control, cities may take steps to enact ordinances to mitigate the risks of homelessness, stabilize housing, and ensure landlords are receiving a fair return on investment, not a windfall in profits from unscrupulous, harmful rental practices. The following are versions of anti-poverty tenant protection ordinances enacted throughout the state. 1 Enact an ordinance that discourages landlords from failing to perform repairs, under-maintaining units, and using related tactics to pressure tenants to move out in order to set higher initial rents, by making the failure to comply with the warranty of a habitability a defense to good cause eviction. 2 Enact an emergency ordinance applicable to all renters in units constructed before a statutorily mandated date, reducing rent to the rate in place three years ago for all tenants living in their units for two or more years, and for renters who moved into their units less than two years ago, reducing rent to the amount charged when the tenant first moved into the unit. 3 Enact an ordinance mandating that landlords who evict tenants for the purpose of allowing the landlord or relatives of the landlord to move into the unit to pay each tenant $20,000. 4 Enact an emergency ordinance banning landlords from evicting tenants for the purpose of allowing the landlord or relatives of the landlord to move into the unit if the tenant has lived in the unit for two or more years and is a member of a vulnerable population, including being elderly, having a disability, or having a child with a disability. 5 Enact an ordinance requiring that landlords who wish to sell their rental unit first offer ownership to the tenant at a rate reduced pursuant to a statutorily mandated amount developed to preserve the stock of rental units and mitigate adverse economic and health impacts associated with a tenant’s forced relocation. 6 Enact an emergency ordinance preventing landlords who wish to evict tenants with minor children to delay eviction until the end of the academic year. 7 Enact an ordinances restricting condominium conversions that requires owners pay tenants’ moving expenses, limits the annual number of conversions based on the vacancy rate, requires a portion of converted units be sold below market rates, provide existing tenants with sale price discounts, mandate payment of a fee to an affordable housing trust fund, and require one for one replacement of converted units. Landlord and housing providers in violation of these ordinances should be assessed a statutory penalty for each instance of harassment, and tenants shall be able to seek statutory damages and attorney’s fees. About Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi had practiced poverty law across the State of California since 2010. She litigates cases in the public interest, with a focus on civil rights and affordable housing. She obtained her J.D. from the University of California—Davis School of Law, and her Bachelor of Science in biology from the University of Michigan.   She currently serves as the Assistant Director of Public Service at University of San Diego School of Law where she directs the Pro Bono Service Program and helps the next generation of poverty attorneys launch their social justice careers.   From 2014-2017, she served as San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program’s Pro Bono Manager and Supervising Attorney, where she managed pro bono projects, recruited pro bono attorneys to increase access to justice, oversaw civil legal services for homeless veterans and persons with HIV/AIDS, and supervised attorneys on cases impacting human rights: public benefits, health law, homelessness, disability discrimination, and affordable housing policy.   From 2012-2014, she served as the Managing Attorney of Legal Services of Northern California’s (LSNC) statewide elder law office overseeing statewide civil legal assistance to 2,000 low-income seniors each year. Before that, she served as Director for the Western States Pension Assistance Project representing low-wage workers in federal ERISA cases in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii. In 2010, she started her legal career as a Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing attorney in LSNC’s rural Ukiah office, representing low-income families in eviction cases.   She is currently serving a three-year appointment to the State Bar’s Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services, is a professional mediator, and is a VA-accredited attorney. She has served on the California Elder Justice Coalition where she drafted elder abuse legislation, and was Co-Chair of Legal Aid Association of California’s Senior Legal Services Section.