Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/2/2019 Item 790 Foothill appeal, Lopes From:James Lopes < To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Fowler, Xzandrea; Odile Ayral Subject:Copy of Appeal of 790 Foothill, and Supplement, for January 15, 2018 Attachments:Appeal of 790 Foothill_8-6-18_FoothillBlvdCivicDefense.pdf; Supplement to Appeal of 790 Foothill to Council_CC_12-29-18.pdf December 29, 2018 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo, California RE: Copy of Supplement to Appeal of 790 Foothill project Dear Chair Fowler and Commissioners: In regard to the 790 Foothill project, we are providing you with a copy of our appeal, and also a supplement which was sent today to the City Council. It is important that you become aware of the policies and potential practices involving the State affordable housing laws, and how the City is not receiving good advice on how to interpret these laws, City policies and the California Environmental Quality Act. Our appeal is primarily due to Staff misinterpretations and incorrect information presented to your Commission at your hearing on July 25, 2018. We are dismayed that staff has not contacted us since our subsequent appeal. However, in that regard we find consistency. The outcome of this appeal may improve the care which is taken in reviewing projects, applying active, legal discretion for your decision making, and creating projects in character with San Luis Obispo's General Plan. We welcome your comments to us and the Council on the matter of your hearing and this appeal. Sincerely, James Lopes Odile Ayral Appellants, Foothill Blvd Civic Defense -- James Lopes Ph. 805-602-1365 1 1 Foothill Blvd Civic Defense August 6, 2018 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for 790 Foothill; File Number USE-1187-2017 Dear Members of the City Council: This appeal is filed with the hope that your Council will use your discretion to correct the staff’s and Planning Commission’s incorrect interpretations of State and City law, inattention to this organization’s public testimony, and the Planning Commission’s approval of the above-referenced use permit for the applicant, LR Development Group. We request that the City Council continue this appeal hearing until corrections are made to respond satisfactorily to City General Plan and Zoning policies and standards, to State law and to maintain public health and safety. This letter incorporates and expands upon the attached letter from the law firm of Wittwer/Parkin, dated July 23, 2018, which represents Foothill Blvd Civic Defense. Where that letter was addressed to the Planning Commission, please consider it to be addressed to your Council. Please refer the application and this appeal back to the Planning Commission to give you some expert opinion before you act upon this appeal. The following sections constitute the main points of this appeal: 1. The claimed CEQA exemptions from environmental review do not apply because the Project does not meet the threshold criteria required for the exemptions, and environmental review is required (Please refer to the Wittwer/Parkin letter of July 23, 2018, section 1). a. The project does not meet the qualifications for a Categorical Exemption because the project design is not consistent with several sections of the Circulation Element and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (COSE) (Ref. CEQA Guidelines 15192(a)(1)-(2); 15195 and 15332, attached). The July 23, 2018 Wittwer/Parkin letter explains these requirements in greater detail. All of the claimed exemptions by staff and Planning Commission are only applicable where a project is consistent with the General Plan and with Zoning. b. The City instead is required by the CEQA Guidelines to conduct an “Initial Study” to determine the significance of specific impacts on the public view at and near the site. The full list of CEQA topics should be addressed in the Initial Study, as applicable. The City should have prepared an independent Initial Study and a resulting Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Reference Wittwer/Parkin letter of July 23, 2018) 2 2. The project is inconsistent with the Circulation Element and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (COSE). The City did not require the project to be designed to be consistent with the scenic view protection policies in the Circulation Element and the COSE (See attached policies). The staff and Planning Commission neglected to utilize these General Plan policies to reduce the project’s obstruction of public views of Bishop Peak and San Luis Mountain, and to reduce these obstructions’ impacts to insignificance. a. The City staff erred in claiming that the Final EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update included adequate analysis and mitigations of impacts by potential development on public views of Bishop Peak and San Luis Mountain. The staff claim is not supported by the Final EIR text. i. The LUCE Final EIR states that a visual impact is considered significant if the proposed development, “Would have a substantial adverse effect on an identified visual resource or scenic vista from a public viewing area (roadways and public parks);…(P. 4-7, Draft EIR; June 2014). The level of significance is also set by the General Plan. The COSE states that the potential view blockage on a scenic roadway is considered a “significant impact” (COSE Program 9.3.6). The proposed project is located at a major gateway intersection, from which many public views are provided of Bishop Peak and San Luis Mountain. The proposed project rendering shows almost total view blockage by the height of part of the project. ii. The LUCE Final EIR makes particular note of the Foothill/Santa Rosa Area, “Foothill /Santa Rosa Area: This part of the city supports views of the surrounding hillsides and natural open space. This portion of the city also serves as a gateway to the city urban core for southbound travelers along Highway 1. Future development has the potential to obstruct or block scenic views.” iii. A verbal staff claim was incorrect at Planning Commission, that the project is at an insignificant location along the long length of the Foothill Boulevard corridor, and therefore the blockage of views of Bishop Peak and San Luis Mountain is insignificant. This analysis and claim was made without any visual impact study, which is required by the COSE and by CEQA to provide factual data or evidence. iv. The LUCE Final EIR states that the mitigations for reducing view blockage are those measures within the COSE and the Circulation Element, such as, “The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from streets and roads… by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions…and the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (see Attachment 2).” b. The lack of any written or factual analysis concerning blockage of this iconic view disqualifies the project from being approved with a finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan (Reference Wittwer/Parking July 23, 2018 letter, section 1). 3 3. The project is also inconsistent with the zoning of the property, which is the C-C-SF (Community Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay) zone. Within districts having a special focus overlay, the special focus zoning overlay requires that all "development within the special planning areas shall adhere to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the provisions for each of the respective special planning areas.” (City Code sec. 17.53.020). a. Without a project financial analysis (pro forma), it is assumed that the project unnecessarily exceeds the underlying zoning density limitation, the 35-foot height limit and the 75 percent maximum site coverage limit. As discussed in section I.b of the letter from Wittwer/Parkin, July 23, 2018, the applicant has not provided any information to demonstrate that without the alternative concessions, the twelve (12) affordable studios cannot be built. The staff and Planning Commission did not require a pro forma financial analysis to show that the applicant needs the requested bonus and incentives to develop 12 affordable studios. b. These exceedances are not consistent with the zoning of the property, and the project does not qualify for the CEQA Categorical Exemption, or qualify for a finding for approval. 4. The City cannot bifurcate or divide approval of the housing incentives which result in reduction of site development standards from the rest of the project review. The City staff erred in bifurcating the project into three decisions, and then advising each body incorrectly and in violation of State CEQA law, concerning their respective purview and duties. The staff incorrectly scheduled a decision by the City Council last in the project review process, to grant the full requested density bonus and housing incentives, thereby depriving the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission of valuable information whether their prerogatives in their review are unnecessarily and unfairly constrained by the applicant’s proposal to use the concessions. (Refer to Item II in the Wittwer/Parkin letter) a. The staff told the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and then the Planning Commission, that they could not reduce density in order to make reductions in building height and bulk, in order to preserve significant views of Bishop Peak, or to reduce the parking demand, or provide more floor area for more parking. Yet, the City is enabled to require a pro forma financial analysis to determine if all of the proposed density is necessary to provide 12 affordable studios. The Planning Commission erred in not responding to public testimony which identified the fact that such a study is enabled and warranted. b. The staff told the Planning Commission that it could not require a financial analysis which would be the City Council purview in determining whether to approve the proposed density bonus and incentives, although that purview and decision would be last in the process, thereby preventing them full use of the commission’s authority and discretion. c. The staff have scheduled a City Council decision to consider granting the applicant a density bonus and two zoning concessions. d. This study is necessary for the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission to use their discretion accordingly to consider appropriate reductions in density 4 to enable achieving consistency with the General Plan and Zoning, and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 5. There is no indication that the project requires a density bonus and two housing concessions to provide twelve affordable studios. The City did not fulfill its obligation to obtain a pro forma financial analysis of the project's costs/revenues, to determine the need for a density bonus and housing incentives, and identify the infeasibility threshold to economically construct and operate 12 affordable studios. a. The staff did not provide full, factual information about the contents and intent of the Density Bonus Law. The law allows the City to reject a request for a density bonus and reduction of site development standards, upon a finding that the “concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reduction …to provide for affordable housing costs.” Please refer to sections III and IV in the July 23, 2018 Wittwer/Parkin letter. These sections of the letter also point out required information that is lacking. b. The City staff incorrectly guided the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission by ignoring public testimony and insisting that the proposed density of 78 units may not be lowered at all. Other cities such as Santa Cruz, Berkeley, San Carlos and Los Angeles require pro forma information in order to respond to density/incentive proposals. 6. A revised Multimodal Transportation Impact Study is necessary to determine if health and safety would be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The Staff and Planning Commission erred in not requiring a current Traffic Impact Analysis, using 2018 or very recent traffic counts, signal wait times, and collision incidents reports, and detailed, consistent estimates of traffic at cumulative build-out of the area. They did not require detailed and correct estimates of traffic at cumulative build-out of the area, based on Zoning and General Plan policies. The Traffic Study should be revised to respond to the following issues: a. The Study relied on traffic counted in a previous 2016 study. The traffic study is looking at data that is anywhere between 2-4 years old when over the past 4 years Cal Poly enrollments have increased by 1,970 students (2.5% per year growth rate: Fall 2014: 20,186 to Fall 2018: 22,156), the population has increased by 1,143 (0.82% per year growth rate: 2014: 46,573 to Fall 2018: 47,716) and the workforce population has increased by 2,870 (3.24% per year growth rate: Fall 2014: 21,238 to Fall 2018: 24,108). This traffic study is based on traffic counts that were taken when Cal Poly may have been out of session and when the Foothill Hill and University Square shopping centers were not fully occupied or operational. i. The exact time of traffic counts for the 2016 Traffic Study does not appear to be indicated in the report. This is very important because traffic varies tremendously when Cal Poly is in session and when it is not. ii. Staff did not take into consideration the possible impacts of 22 Chorro, the new overbuilt and under-parked development being presently built across the street. Its impact upon the intersection remains unclear until the building is occupied. 5 b. This segment of Foothill Boulevard is currently experiencing a large volume of car (18,858 daily volume), pedestrian (526 daily volume) and bicycle (642 daily volume) traffic due to proximity to California Polytechnic University. According to “Trip Generation Rates from the 8th Edition ITE Trip Generation Report” a low-rise residential development comprised of 78 units will generate 534 daily trips and 46 peak hour trips (these are more than reported in the study for general residential rates). This, in combination with 22 Chorro (23) and 71 Palomar (20), should trigger a project traffic study per the Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines when a project (or projects) is/are anticipated to approach 100 or more peak hour trips. c. The traffic study incorrectly used general family apartment traffic generation information, instead of unrelated adult occupancies. This general basis for traffic generation is false as it considers an apartment occupied by a family unit. Trip generation by an apartment occupied by 4 or more (8 for two-bedroom units) independent individuals is likely to be considerably different. Studies at the University of California at Davis have shown that a student housing unit of 3000 students will generate a peak hour of traffic of 700 trips. If the 78 units may have an average of 4 students each, then the same ratio applied to this project would mean at least 73 peak hour trips would be generated, not the 32 shown in the report (Table 9). The report should recognize and address the issue of traffic generation by student housing, at the maximum anticipated at worst case densities. (Source: From 2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR UC Davis Vol 3 Page 2-106) d. The collision rate (2.73 APMVM) for this segment of Foothill Blvd is above average for the State of California Caltrans District 5, and the County of San Luis Obispo. A Transportation Impact Study is called for at this intersection because it is a high crash location and has a large volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This roadway is already operating below the established MMLOS standards and any further degradation to the MMLOs score should be considered a significant Impact under CEQA. On page 3-24 the Circulation Element states “Redevelopment of University Square shall incorporate a detailed circulation, safety & access management analysis for the intersections of Boysen & Santa Rosa (Potential Grade Separated Crossing / Restriction), Foothill & Chorro, and Foothill & Broad as well as driveway access points along adjacent roadways; and recommend improvements, if any.” This traffic study does not fulfill this requirement. e. According to the Central Coast Transportation Consulting report, northbound traffic at the Foothill Blvd./Chorro Street intersection is operating at an LOS score of D both during the mid-day peak hours and PM peak hours. Yet, the northbound LOS score implausibly remains the same for both the Cumulative and the Cumulative Plus Project for these two peak hours. f. The Multimodal Transportation Impact Study did not reveal the planned extent of cumulative building in the Foothill Special Focus Area, which staff incorrectly stated as just shopping centers. The staff separately stated that the focus area is intended for intense, dense mixed use projects. The extent of traffic generated by large-scale mixed-use residential projects was not identified and apparently not included. The report’s omission of data which estimates the potential cumulative build-out of the Special Focus Area leaves it unknown what level of traffic to anticipate. g. Staff and Planning Commission did not respond adequately to the residents who described the difficulties of this intersection, and how everyone's safety is going to be adversely impacted. In a recent Fremont case (Protect Niles v. City of Fremont, 7/16/2018), the judge 6 sided with the residents when he wrote: "These fact-based comments by residents support a fair argument that the Project would have a significant adverse impact on traffic congestion on Niles Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project. Residents' personal observations of traffic conditions where they live and commute may constitute substantial evidence if they contradict the conclusions of a professional traffic study. (See Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 735-736 & fn. 13.) This is especially true there, as here, residents cite specific facts that call into question the underlying assumptions of a traffic study." (emphasis added) 7. The extent of parking demand, occupancy in the mechanical lift system, and potential for traffic and on-street parking demand were not quantitatively analyzed. a. Surveys of parking demand and associated traffic and traffic safety impacts should have been prepared, similar to the Shattuck and University Mixed Use Project Traffic and Parking study conducted in Berkeley by Abrams Associated: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Land_Use_Division/2011-06-23%20Traffic%20and%20Parking%20Study.pdf b. The Chorro / Foothill area is already bumper to bumper parking every day of the week when Cal Poly is in session, especially on North Chorro and Boysen (and this, before the completion of 22 Chorro,) and both shopping centers have had to hire companies to help monitor parking on their lots. c. The so-called 2 bedroom apartments at 22 Chorro are now brashly advertised as 4 bedrooms on several websites. Consequently, the number of tenants is twice as important as foreseen, and required parking is significantly below what it should have been. The same statement is valid for 790 Foothill. In view of the developer's acknowledgement that these are truly 4 bedroom apartments, it is within the City’s purview to require additional parking for 790 Foothill. d. In the worst case scenario, if all tenants have cars, there will be a shortfall of 313 on-site parking spaces. These cars will be vying with the 44 students residing at The Academy (those who will also be lacking onsite parking spaces) for on-street parking spaces in the surrounding neighborhoods. By approving this project as submitted you will be reducing public safety by increasing congestion on public streets and depleting available on-street parking. Un-accommodated tenants, guests, retail customers and service personnel will be forced to find parking in the adjacent neighborhoods and in private parking lots already impacted by spill-over parking. Several adjacent businesses already post parking guards and have aggressive towing programs. (PDF) On-street parking: Effects on traffic.... Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46212892_On- street_parking_Effects_on_traffic_congestion [accessed Aug 03 2018]. e. It is clear that this infill project will be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment because of the potential overflow parking problem and because of the unsafe transportation patterns that presently occur near the Chorro/Foothill intersection. To be clear, creating an Anholm Residential Permit Parking District and expanding the Ferrini Residential Parking Permit District will protect these neighborhoods from spill-over parking, but it is also clear that doing so will adversely impact this infill project by further depleting on-street parking for those tenants lacking on-site parking spaces. 7 f. It was incumbent on the traffic consultant to cite in its report the following passage in our Circulation Element - 14.1.2. Neighborhood Protection: “The City shall facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high intensity uses” and to cite the following passage in our Land Use Element - 2.3.9. Compatible Development: “The City shall require that new housing built within an existing neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Compatibility for all development shall be evaluated using the following criteria: I. Parking “New Development”; (a) Outside of the Downtown in-lieu parking fee area, new development will be required to provide adequate off-street parking to match the intended use.” g. This traffic study is remiss in that it ignored the vehicle maneuvers required when entering or leaving on-street parking. These should have been included in the traffic management overall evaluation. These vehicle maneuvers can contribute to the cause of congestion especially when traffic volumes are high. Two types of on-street parking behavior have been observed. These include legal and illegal on-street parking. On‐street parking maneuvers often start temporary bottlenecks, potentially affecting some following vehicles, which might have to endure an extra delay. When close to signalized intersections, such delay can sometimes linger over multiple cycles, affecting vehicles that arrive much later. The shortage of on-street parking can increase traffic congestion by forcing drivers to circle blocks multiple times before an on-street parking space is freed up. Moreover, previous studies have taken into account the reduction in road width to accommodate on-street parking and its effect on reduction in road capacity. Hobbs[3] reported the influence of the physical use of road space, parking maneuvers and opening of car doors on increasing delay (see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46212892_On- street_parking_Effects_on_traffic_congestion & https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/atr.1329). h. This traffic study should have included on-street parking occupancy surveys conducted on both weekdays and weekends while Cal Poly is in session and while both shopping centers are up and running. Similar to the Shattuck and University Mixed Use Project Traffic and Parking Study conducted by Abrams Associated, over 20 block faces in the vicinity of the project site should have been surveyed. (see: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_- _Land_Use_Division/2011-06-23%20Traffic%20and%20Parking%20Study.pdf) i. This project creates an unacceptable safety risk to the residents who have vehicles that will not fit into the mechanical lift, to the residents who do not have parking privileges in the mechanical lifts, to the tenants’ guests, to the commercial/retail customers, to handicapped drivers when the two handicapped spaces are filled, to staff and employees, to the landscapers, maintenance and cleaning personnel and to the commercial delivery workers. 8. Affordable Housing Units. We believe that the low proportion and of only one type of low-income affordable units in the project, and the expensive prices of remaining luxury student apartments, does not meet the intent of the City's Mixed Income Housing Policy 4.2, “Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in size, appearance and basic quality to market-rate units.” 8 The area near this intersection includes Pacheco Elementary School with a large number of struggling families, two shopping centers with many minimum wage employees, and Sierra Vista Hospital with a wide range of salaries. This location is therefore perfect for real workforce housing that would include one and two bedroom low-income apartments with parking. We can only deplore that the City chose to build luxury apartments for well-to-do students instead, with very low income units unfit for working families, who even if they resigned themselves to live in a small studio, could hardly conceive living among privileged students. We do not believe that the type of development proposed for 790 Foothill was the intent of the new affordable housing law. We therefore request that the City Council continue this appeal hearing until a new unbiased traffic study, based upon student housing, not family apartments, and complete with precise dates as well as on-street occupancy survey, is done when Cal Poly is in session and 22 Chorro is up and running. We ask that all the requested corrections are made regarding General Plan and Zoning consistency, CEQA exemptions, bifurcation of approval of the Housing Incentives, pro forma information to make design decisions and to respond satisfactorily to State and City law and City General Plan and Zoning policies. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Odile Ayral and James Lopes For Foothill Blvd Civic Defense Attachments: 1. General Plan policies referenced in item 2 2. Municipal Requirements for project pro formas referenced in Item 5b 3. July 23, 2018 letter from Wittwer / Parkin; by Pearl Kan 9 ATTACHMENT 1 General Plan policies referenced in item 2, 790 Foothill Appeal Letter Foothill Blvd Civic Defense a. Reference: Circulation Element policies listed in the LUCE Final EIR, which apply to the project: “15.0.2 Development Along Scenic Routes. The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from streets and roads. Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views… B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views. C. As part of the City's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact.” b. Reference: Conservation and Open Space Element policies listed in the LUCE Final EIR applicable to the project: i. “9.1.5 View protection in new development. The City will include all environmental review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines.” ii. “9.2.1 Views to and from public places, including scenic roadways. The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places, and encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. B. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features. C. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be considered “sensitive” and require architectural review.” iii. 9.2.2 Views to and from private development. Projects should incorporate as amenities views from and within private development sites. Private development designs should cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to be met. iv. 9.3.4 Environmental and architectural review. Conduct environmental review and architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies regarding visual impacts and quality. v. 9.3.5 Visual assessments. Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for projects affecting important scenic resources and views from public places. vi. 9.3.6 View blockage along scenic highways. Determine that view blockage along scenic roadways is a significant impact. 10 Attachment 2 References to Municipal Requirements for Project Pro Formas, Item 5b Foothill Blvd Civic Defense City of Santa Cruz 3. Tier 2 Concessions - Planning Commission Approval and Financial Pro Forma Required. The following concessions and incentives may be approved by the planning commission, unless the housing development or other concessions otherwise require approval by the city council. The applicant shall provide a pro forma demonstrating to the city that the requested concession or incentive results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to the project to provide for affordable ownership costs or affordable rents. a. Greater increases in lot coverage than included in Tier 1; b. Greater reductions in front, side, or rear setbacks than included in Tier 1; c. Greater reductions in required landscape area than included in Tier 1; 4. Tier 3 Concessions – City Council Approval and Financial Pro Forma Required. The following concessions and incentives may be approved by the city council. The applicant shall provide a pro forma demonstrating to the city that the requested concession or incentive results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to the project to provide for affordable ownership costs or affordable rents: a. Deferring collection of impact fees on market rate units until issuance of certificate of occupancy; b. Reduction in the minimum requirements for lot area; lot width; or distance between residential structures; c. Increases in the maximum permitted building height; percentage of compact parking spaces; floor area ratio for non- residential housing development in mixed use project; fence height; or sign area or dimensions; d. Reduced parking space dimensions; driveway width; parking aisle width; garage and carport dimensions; or bicycle parking requirements; e. Parking spaces located within required setback areas; f. Reduction of off-street parking ratios below those permitted by Government Code Section 65915 (p) and Section 24.16.260(5); g. Approval of mixed use buildings or uses as part of the residential housing development, if non- residential land uses will reduce the cost of the residential housing development, and if the city finds that the proposed non-residential uses are compatible with the residential housing development and with existing and planned development in the area where the proposed residential housing development will be located; h. Any direct financial assistance, including that for purchasers of affordable units; i. Any additional regulatory incentives or concessions not included in Tier 1 or Tier 2. City of Berkeley Procedure for Evaluating Density Bonus Applications Applicant submits “pencil out pro forma,” using the following scenarios: A. Base Project, 100% market rate (pays City’s affordable housing impact fee) B. Base Project, with proposed BMR units C. Density Bonus Project, with BMR units and density bonus units D. Proposed Project, with requested concessions/incentives Pro forma is peer-reviewed by a qualified consultant (at a rate of $180/hour) Determination whether the concession is necessary pursuant to 65915(d)(1)(A) Review written request for waivers 11 City of Santa Cruz The City’s 2006 ordinance was adopted reluctantly as density bonus was perceived to undermine the local zoning ordinance and its provisions to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods. To limit excessive deviations from design review standards established in local code, the City applied a tiered process to review concessions that made it onerous for applicants and limited predictability in the process. Concessions that were deemed to have heightened sensitivity were subject to Planning Commission or Council review (e.g. increases in height, bulk, and floor area), which stalled project processing and effectively deterred applicants. The City also required developers to submit detailed pro formas to justify requested incentives, concessions, waivers, or reductions. City of San Carlos D. Concessions Requiring Financial Pro Forma from Applicant. All other concessions and incentives shall require the builder to demonstrate to the City Council through the provision of a pro forma that the requested concession or incentive results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to the residential development. The pro forma shall include: 1. The actual cost reduction achieved through the concession or incentive; 2. Evidence that the cost reduction allows the builder to provide affordable rents or affordable sales prices; and 3. All other information as may be requested by the Administrator to ensure that the required findings can be made City of Los Angeles FINANCIAL ANALYSIS I PRO-FORMA Pursuant to the Affordable Housing Incentive Density Bonus provisions of the LAMC (Section 12.22 A.25), proposed projects that involve on-menu incentives are required to complete the Department's Master Land Use Permit Application form, and no supplemental financial data is required. The City typically has the discretion to request additional information when it is needed to help make required findings. However, the City has determined that the level of detail provided in a pro forma is not necessary to make the findings for on-menu incentives. This is primarily because each of the City's eight on-menu incentives provides additional buildable area, which, if requested by a developer, can be assumed to provide additional project income and therefore provide for affordable housing costs. When the menu of incentives was adopted by ordinance, the impacts of each were assessed in proportion to the benefits gained with a set-aside of affordable housing units. Therefore, a pro-forma illustrating construction costs and operating income and expenses is not a submittal requirement when filing a request for on-menu incentives. The City's Density Bonus Ordinance requires "a pro forma or other documentation" with requests for off-menu incentives but has no such requirement for on-menu requests. 1 Foothill Blvd Civic Defense December 28, 2018 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Supplement to Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for 790 Foothill; File Number USE-1187-2017 Dear Members of the City Council: This supplement to the above-referenced appeal is in reference to appeal point no. 2 in the appeal letter of August 6, 2018. The supplement provides information about the visibility of Bishop Peak, contradicting Planning Staff’s impromptu comments at the Planning Commission hearing of July 25, 2018. Staff said that views of Bishop Peak are plentiful west of the subject site, so no particular view preservation through the project site is necessary. These comments followed our presentation that the iconic view of Bishop Peak is through the project site, due to its location at the Foothill/Chorro intersection, as shown below: View from Chorro Street at Foothill Boulevard Project rendering showing view blockage from the same intersection location 2 The photo images below were taken west of the project site on Foothill Boulevard. They demonstrate that views are substantially blocked, or very brief views occur west of the site as viewed from the westbound lanes of Foothill Boulevard. Two-story apartments and houses and dense tree cover obscure views in both R-1 and R-4 zoning. This photo evidence confirms that the subject site is the solitary complete viewpoint of Bishop Peak viewed from Foothill Boulevard from westbound lanes . No other location has this complete view with such clarity as the intersection with Chorro Street. The point of this supplement is to support Section 2 of the Appeal, that the loss of this view is environmentally significant according to the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). The COSE classifies Foothill and Chorro as a “moderate scenic road,” and it requires that any loss of a scenic view on such streets has to have a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis with mitigation measures consistent with its requirements. The Staff propose that this project be exempt from CEQA as a residential infill project, meaning no environmental studies or measures are required. However, CEQA requires that an exemption cannot be granted if the project violates any general plan policy. We claim that the project violates the COSE and Circulation element policies on views, and therefore it cannot be exempt from review. This supplement transmits photos of the loss of views at the site which were not in the appeal letter, and the loss of these views must be studied professionally through a CEQA “initial study.” We ask that your Council use your discretion and have Staff correct their interpretations of State and City law, and require a full CEQA initial study, since this project does not qualify for a residential exemption. We again request that the City Council continue this appeal hearing until corrections are made to respond satisfactorily to this Appeal, to City General Plan and Zoning policies and standards, to State law and to maintain public health and safety. Sincerely, James Lopes Odile Ayral Appellants Enclosure: Photos of Bishop Peak 3 Photos of Bishop Peak West of the Project: Multi-family zoning allows two- and three-story development that blocks views. Similar two- story houses in R-1 zoning also block views. Combination of tall development and trees will block views of Bishop Peak. Higher speed limit allows faster traffic and less viewing time. This view of Bishop Peak is temporary since multi-family development is set back. This location is the single view of the peak for a brief time. This fall view shows how trees and two-story houses will obscure and block the view.