Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/15/2019 Item 9, Riehl From:Loren Riehl < To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Cohen, Rachel; Codron, Michael Subject:790 Foothill - Applicant Correspondence Attachments:MEMORANDUM_790 Foothill.pdf; Exhibit A_LR Correspondence to PC\[1\].pdf; Exhibit B_CEQA NOE.pdf Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council: Attached please find a Memorandum and related exhibits regarding my development application at 790 Foothill. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Thank you, Loren Riehl 1 1 MEMORANDUM Date: January 14, 2019 To: San Luis Obispo City Council From: LR Real Estate Investment Group, LLC Re: The Appeal of 790 Foothill Project (the “Project”) This Memorandum outlines a response to some of the correspondence received by the City in connection with the appeal of the Project. 1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. Therefore the CEQA exemption per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines is applicable. a. The Appellants incorrectly claim that the project is inconsistent with the general plan, and therefore, a CEQA exemption under Section 15332 of the CEQA guidelines is inapplicable. b. The Appellants position is essentially that the building will be too tall and it will “block” views in violation of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Thus causing the construction of the building to be inconsistent with the General Plan. c. It is unclear from all of the Appeal documents whether the Appellant is taking the position that (i) any construction here would be inconsistent with the General Plan because it could block views (regardless of size; e.g. 2, 3 or 4 stories would block views) or (ii) if they are conceding that construction would be allowed up to 35’ and only the additional height is causing the Project not to conform with the General Plan. Fortunately, both of those positions have definitive answers under the law, and both positions must be rejected. i. First False Proposition: Any construction could block views and is therefore inconsistent with the General Plan. The project site is specifically zoned for up to 35’ of construction, and such construction would therefore be consistent with the General Plan. 1. Please see my correspondence to the Planning Commission for a supplemental analysis of General Plan consistency (attached hereto as Exhibit A). 2 2. There is no ambiguity in the General Plan as to whether or not a 35’ structure is allowed on this particular site. ii. Second False Proposition: The additional height of the building required per California Government Code Section 65915 causes the Project to no longer be consistent with the General Plan. This EXACT argument has been rejected by the courts in this EXACT context (i.e. the court determined that the application of a height exemption did not eliminate compliance with the General Plan from a CEQA analysis perspective). 1. Please see Wollmer v. City of Berkeley where the court rejected this exact argument. See Page 793: “Guidelines section 15332, at issue here, sets forth a categorical exemption for in-fill development projects meeting certain conditions. At issue on appeal is the subdivision (a) condition. This condition requires that projects qualifying for a class 32 exemption must comply with all applicable general plan designations and policies and all applicable zoning designations and regulations, in addition to the other protective criteria set forth in the regulation. As pertinent here, the density bonus law provides that “[t]he granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment ..., zoning change, or other discretionary approval.” (§ 65915, subd. (f)(5).) And, as explained in part II.A.4., ante, subdivision (e)(1) prohibits a local municipality from applying “any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction” of a density bonus-qualifying development. Here, to accommodate the project's density bonus, the City waived or reduced zoning standards for height, floor area ratio and setbacks. Absent these waivers, variances would have been required. It is Wollmer's position that the City's waiver of zoning standards as mandated by the density bonus law precludes the project from qualifying for the exemption. While the substantial evidence test governs our review of a municipality's factual determination that a project comes within a categorical exemption, Wollmer's arguments, and the City's reasoning, are interpretive exercises delving into the meaning and applicability of Guidelines section 15332, the density bonus law, and the City's own zoning ordinance. 3 The City reasoned that the development standards which it waived pursuant to section 65915, subdivision (e) were not “applicable” to the project within the meaning of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a) because the above statute renders these standards inapplicable in order to allow the density bonus. Further, the inclusionary ordinance, which is part of the City's zoning ordinance, generally requires the City to grant density bonuses upon a proper application (Berkeley Mun.Code, § 23C.12.050.A), and states that the “use of a Density Bonus is preferred over other types of concessions or incentives. Incentives may include, but are not limited to, fee deferments and waivers, granting of Variances, relaxation of otherwise applicable Permit conditions and provision of government benefits” (id., § 23C.12.050.C). Wollmer asserts that by applying the exemption in a way that harmonizes with relevant law, the City in effect amended the exemption, improperly expanded its definition, and exceeded its jurisdiction. There is no support for this misguided assertion. The City properly applied the plain meaning of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a) to its own codes in a manner that was in harmony with the state's density bonus law, and so applied, properly found that the project was exempt from CEQA. On its face the exemption only requires consistency with applicable general plan designations and policies and applicable zoning designations and regulations. (Guidelines, § 15332, subd. (a).) The density bonus statute in turn requires a waiver of development standards that physically preclude construction of a density-bonus qualifying project. (§ 65915, subd. (e)(1).) And the City's own zoning ordinance generally requires the grant of a density bonus upon a complete application. (Berkeley Mun.Code, § 23C.12.050.A.) Taking these laws together as they operate in the context of a density bonus project, it is clear that the waived zoning standards are not “applicable” and that the requirements of Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a) were met.” d. Attached as Exhibit B please find a comprehensive analysis of this Project and the application of Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Please note that Exhibit B is also a Notice of Exemption that we request the City file upon final approval of the Project. 4 2. The Appellants have advocated for a flawed, narrow and inconsistent position of what constitutes a “blocked view”. a. In a letter to the City Council dated December 28, 2018, the Appellants falsely indicate that “the subject site is the solitary complete viewpoint of Bishop Peak viewed from Foothill Boulevard from westbound lanes”. To the contrary, views of Bishop Peak are maintained along Foothill Blvd. b. The letter also provides images indicating that “trees will block views of Bishop Peak” and “two story houses in R-1 zoning also block views”. c. The letter goes on to provide photos that they argue prove that views are blocked for the duration of Foothill. However, the definition of “blocking views” should not be so narrow that it means a view is blocked from any angle and any vantage point. Per the Appellant’s letter, they believe that trees along Foothill block the views of Bishop Peak. This would also seem to indicate that the Appellant’s believe any construction on site would block views (per their letter, even planting new trees on site may risk blocking views). It is hard to imagine activities under this narrow definition that would not constitute blocking views within San Luis Obispo. d. The letter fails to accurately represent the conditions heading westbound on Foothill Blvd, as there are extensive views of Bishop Peak driving west. For example, below please find the Google Maps Street View image of the neighboring property (i.e. the same view exists next door) which would be unaffected by development: 5 To illustrate the flaws in the Appellants definition of “blocked views”, please see the below image of the Project site. From the vantage point in the image, there currently is no view of Bishop Peak from the site. It is entirely blocked by trees. 3. Appellants falsely indicate that “there is presently a conflict between the City’s Zoning Map and the Zoning Regulations as they are written… According to the zoning regulations as written, this property is not located within this Special Planning Area.” See Allan Cooper letter dated January 12, 2019 and Appellant letter to the city dated January 13, 2019. a. This argument must be rejected for several reasons. The first being dispositive on the subject. The Land Use Element specifically designated this site as part of the Special Focus Area. Please see Figure 3 on Page 1-23 of the LUE. Below is an enlarged image of the Project site showing the orange line around the site to highlight the property as being included in the SFA: 6 b. There is no ambiguity here. This site is included in the SFA. Furthermore, the Appellant’s analysis is incomplete and inaccurate regarding what properties are included in the SFA. Section 8.2.1 states that this SFA “includes land on both sides of Foothill boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa”. This DOES NOT SAY “includes only”; rather, it accurately states that it includes the land between Santa Rosa and Chorro. The inclusion of this site in the SFA does not negate, or conflict with, the inclusion of the other properties as indicated. 4. Concerns are raised that the City bifurcated the process of review. However, please note that this is the city’s standard procedure when CA Government Code Section 65915 is applied. Furthermore, the review of City Council is de novo, so there is no bifurcation of the approval with respect to the review of the Project before the Council. a. I believe it is also noteworthy that any process must work in steps when there are multiple committees, commissions or councils with different purviews. E.g. in any process with differing purviews, someone will have to go first, so the City process makes sense. 5. The Appellants argue that the Project does not require any development waivers under CA Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) because the applicant could simply reduce the size of the units to an arbitrary number of square feet advocated by the Appellants. However, this argument contradicts the express holding 7 of Wollmer v. City of Berkeley and would frustrate the purpose of CA Government Code Section 65915. a. It is an important backdrop to analysis of CA Government Code Section 65915 to understand subdivision (r) which states “this chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units”. b. CA Government Code Section 65915 provides that the city may not apply “any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. c. As indicated in my application, previous correspondence and the staff report, it would be physically impossible to build this development at the allowable densities without a waiver of height and lot coverage standards. d. Appellants suggest merely reducing the size of the individual units to get the same number of units without the needed waivers. However, this fails for several reasons: i. Wollmer expressly holds that the Applicant has a right to build a project so long as it complies with the requirements of Section 65915 (e.g. deed restricted affordable units provided). It does not state that CA Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) only applies if no other project could be built. ii. Reduction in the size of the units would not prevent a needed fourth story of the building, even if such requirement were allowed by the law (which it is not). iii. One bedroom units at the project average 765SF, which is considerably less than the allowable size for a one bedroom under the Zoning Ordinance (please see SLO Municipal Code Section 17.100(M), which provides that a one bedroom may be up to 1,000SF). Furthermore, it is unreasonably to conclude that 2 bedrooms should be reduced to 850SF, as this would be smaller than the allowable size for a one bedroom under the code, thus providing a completely fabricated restriction on unit size as a consequence of valid exercise of CA Government Code Section 65915. iv. The analysis regarding the physical necessity for the waiver is very straight forward with this high-density infill site. If no density bonus were applied to the project, there would be roughly 2/3 as many units on the Project site. Since there are three matching stories of residential units, that means that only 2/3 of the floors would be required. It would severely frustrate the purpose of CA Government Code Section 65915 if the city were to apply a standard that actually reduced the pre- density bonus project (i.e. by reducing what is buildable within 8 the non-density bonus project) in order to apply the density bonus. 6. No financial analysis is required in order to provide the density bonus or waive development standards per CA Government Code Section 65915. a. Granting of a density bonus is a ministerial act. Please see Section 65915 using the word “shall” grant the density bonus with no exceptions provided. b. Section 65915(e)(1) uses the term “physically” precluding construction to determine application of CA Government Code Section 65915. Further, in Wollmer, the court states “it is clear that one of the effects of the 2008 amendments [to Section 65915] is to delete the requirement that an applicant for a waiver of development standards must show that the waiver was necessary to render the project economically feasible. [parentheses added]. c. In the event the City were to deny the waivers of development standards, which I believe would violate the state law, please note that the Project is still entitled to concessions. However, since the development standards must be waived under an alternate section of the law, this analysis does not focus on concessions. 7. Both precedence and application of the City’s Zoning Ordinance necessitate that the City reject the argument that the type and size of the affordable units is inappropriate. a. This issue is covered by SLO Municipal Code Section 17.16.010(1), which assigns density unit values to different unit types. Notably, a studio apartment only counts as .5 density units and a 2 bedroom unit counts as 1 density unit. i. Instead of building 6- 2 bedroom units, we are required to build 12 studio units so that the total adjusted density is the same. ii. As a result, the number and type of units is the same for purposes of code analysis. b. We believe there is very high demand for these type of studio units among an underserved portion of the population. c. The precedence in the City has been to allow the developer to choose what type of units to build (of all unit types, including the market rate and affordable units) so long as the total density units is consistent with the density equivalent standards. 8. Please consider the following voluntary concessions, which should have a positive impact on the Project: a. Please see Allan Cooper’s letter dated January 12, 2019 where he indicates concern that these units could accommodate up to 8 occupants creating untold problems. Please note that I voluntarily agreed at Planning Commission to limits on occupancy of 2 occupants for a studio or one bedroom and 4 occupants for a 2 bedroom unit. 9 The concern of 8 students per apartment has been addressed and eliminated. b. Concerns have been raised regarding the impacts of traffic. However, the traffic report conducted for the Project indicates that there is no evidence that this intersection is unusual or different from other similar intersections. Note that in Wollmer, the court rejected an argument that there was anything unusual just beacause a project was located at the intersection of two major streets. i. This Project, with required upgrades, is expected to improve traffic flow in the area. ii. Additionally, please note that the traffic study included analyses of operations of the intersections in question in reaching its determinations and recommendations. There is no indication that a new traffic study or any other action is required other than the recommended improvements incorporated into the Project. 1. Among other conclusions, the Traffic Report prepared for the City came to the conclusion that the collision rate for the intersection is “below the District 5 rates provided in the Caltrans 2009 Collision Data on California State Highways manual.” iii. Concerns are raised regarding the date of the initial traffic study. It should be noted that at the time this project was submitted, the traffic study was based on the most current information. Substantial time has past since the Project was originally submitted as a result of the extensive requirements of the review process. iv. We would consider additional traffic improvements above and beyond requirements if it would fit with the Project and induce greater public support for the Project. We are open to discussions with the City Council on this subject. Goodwin, Heather From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Wednesday, July25, 20185:18PM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:FW: 790Foothill - Correspondence forPlanning Commission PleaseforwardtothePlanningCommission, July25, 2018meeting, Item #1. RachelCohen AssociatePlanner Community Development 919PalmStreet, SanLuisObispo, CA93401-3218 Ercohen@slocity.org T805.781.7574 slocity.org From: LorenRiehl < Sent: Wednesday, July25, 2018 5:02PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Ansolabehere, Jon <JAnsolabehere@slocity.org>; Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org> Subject: 790Foothill - CorrespondenceforPlanningCommission DearMs. Cohen: Weareinreceipt ofaletter fromWittwer Parkin (the “Letter”) written onbehalfofFoothill BlvdCivic Defenseregardingour development project at790Foothill (the “Project”). Weare responding tothatletter becausewe areconcerned thatcertain misstatementsoflawandfactwithinthe Letterare likelytocause confusion atourupcomingPlanningCommission hearing. Contrary totheassertions oftheLetter, we would like toconcurwiththeStaffReport’sdetermination thattheproject iscategorically exempt fromthe provisions ofCEQAunder Section15332 oftheCEQAGuidelines. TheLetter’s primaryobjectiveappears tobe todispute application oftheaforementioned exemption. Section15332 ofthe CEQA Guidelines providesthatprojects shallbeexemptfromthe provisions ofCEQAifthey arecharacterized asin-filldevelopmentmeeting certainconditions. Specifically, the Letter focusesontrying toundermine (tonoavail) theapplication ofCEQA Guideline Section15332(a), whichstates: a) Theproject isconsistentwiththeapplicablegeneralplan designationandallapplicablegeneralplan policiesaswellaswith applicablezoningdesignationandregulations. AsdiscussedatlengthintheStaffReport, theProject conformstotherequirement ofCEQAGuideline Section15332(a) andthe exemption therefore applies. TheLetter’sanalysistothecontrarymust be rejected forseveral reasons, including, without limitation, thefollowing: 1 1. Theletter incorrectly states thatenvironmental reviewisrequired because “theProject violates GeneralPlanpolicies undertheCity’sConservationand OpenSpace element rendering theclaimed exemptions inapplicable.” However, thisstatement appearsto bebased on amaterial misunderstandingofthewayinwhichGeneral PlanElementsinteract withoneanother, assuch elements mustberead together andassumedto beconsistent with oneanother. TheLandUse Element (or “LUE”) is consideredthe “core” oftheGeneralPlan. Itisdriven inpartbytheother elementsandisintended tobe consistentwith suchotherelements. With respecttotheProject, the LandUse Elementspecifically prescribes ahighdensity, mixed-useProject onthe propertyand contemplates height exceptions (with orwithoutapplicationoftheState’sDensityBonus Lawalso referredtoasCAGovernment CodeSection65915or “DBL”). Thisproject isconsistentwith that express policy, andisnotinconflictwith anyotherpolicies (theLetter doesnotcitetoanyexpress policy directly applicabletotheproject, ratherrelies onsubjective opinions andinterpretations of generalprovisions intheConservation andOpenSpaceElementor “COSE”). a. Notably, pertheLUE: “TheLandUseElementrepresents ageneralized blueprintforthefuture oftheCityofSan LuisObispo. Required byState law, itisthe coreofthe GeneralPlan. Starting withconditions atthetimeofadoption, theLand UseElementsetsfortha pattern fortheorderly development oflandwithin theCity’splanningarea.” Asitrelates totheProject, theLUE expresslyindicates thedesirefordevelopment ofthisSpecialPlanning Area. b. TheLUEgoesonto explainthattheCOSEhasthe “followingkeyimplications fortheLand Use Element”…. “TheLandUseElementworks with thiselement andincorporatesconcepts suchas clustering andbuffering open spaceareasinordertoenhance theirprotection.” Importantly, theLandUseElementthenstates “Policiesin theLand UseElementandtheGeneralPlan Land UseDiagram aredesignedtobeconsistentand complementary withallother General Plan Elements.” i. PleasealsoseeCaliforniaGovernment Code Section 65300.5, which provides that “the Legislature intendsthat thegeneralplanandelements andpartsthereof comprisean integrated, internally consistent andcompatible statementofpolicies fortheadopting agency.” c. Itiscritical tonotethat stateandlocalregulations mandatethat theLandUseElement worksinconjunction withtheotherelementsoftheGeneralPlan. Withrespecttothe Project, its locationhasbeen included withina SpecialPlanning Areadesignated specifically forthepurpose ofhigh density, mixedusedevelopment withconsideration of building height adjustments (see LUESection8.2.1). This Project is based uponthe expresslanguageoftheLUEintended todirectfuturedevelopmentoftheProject site itself. TheLetteradvocates foraninterpretation thatwouldimplythattheexpress languageof theLUE isinconsistent withtheCOSE, whichisnotapossible legalorlogical interpretation. i. Consistency withtheLand UseElement, andspecifically Section 8.2.1, isnot, andcannot, beinquestion. Inthisparticular instance, theCitydesired sostrongly to havethis particularlotdevelopedforthesubmitted purpose, thatit tooktheunusual stepof designatedthesitefortheexact purpose. ii. SincetheLandUseElementmustbeconsideredconsistent withtheotherelements ofthe General Plan, webelieve itwouldbeimpossible toconclude thatthesiteisinappropriate fortheproposedproject based oninconsistency withalternate GeneralPlan provisions. Inother words, ifahigh density, mixed-useprojectisexpressly descibed by theLUEthenitcannot alsobeinconsistent withanalternateelement, asthiswould undermine theinterpretation rulesprovidedbythe CityandtheState. Instead, the only possibleconclusion is thattheprojectisconsistentwith theGeneralPlanandthe relied uponpoliciesintheLUEareconsistentwith thepoliciesoftheCOSE. 2 1. Itshouldbenoted thattheLUE andCOSEareconsistent withoneanother. The Cityhasexplainedthatthehighdensity developmentinthislimited Special Planning Area wasincluded intheLUE asaway ofpreservingopen spaceandview policiescontained within theCOSE bylimitinghigh developmentprojects toa particular area. Sowhile suchanexplanation is notrequiredto findtheelements consistent, itishelpful tounderstanding theissueandhowthese twopoliciesco- existconsistently with oneanother. d. Theproposed interpretation wouldalsoconflictwiththeprecedence setbynumerous other infillprojectsthroughout thecity, including, within theSpecial PlanningArea. th2. TheLetter ignores theholding inWollmerv. City ofBerkeley (193Cal.App.4 1329) despite reference tosuchcaseintheStaffReport andproposedResolution, andthe factthatthecaseis directly applicabletotheProjectanddefinitively rejectstheargumentscontained intheLetter. a. Wollmerheldthatdevelopment standards relaxedunderthedensity bonuslawarenot considered “applicable” withrespecttoreview ofconsistency withtheGeneral Plan. This means thatapplicationofa heightconcession bydefinition can’tcauseaproject to bedeemed inconsistent withtheGeneral Planforpurposesofapplication ofaCEQAexemption. b. WithrespecttotheProject, this meansthatany analysisisinvalidclaiming thatanexemption can’tapplybecause “theproposedproject exceedstheheightstandard… andthecoverage…” andtherefore “theCity’sclaim ofexemption fromenvironmental review iswhollyimproper” seeSection I.b. oftheLetter). Suchconclusion wasexpresslyrejectedbythecourtinWollmer. 3. TheLetterstates thatthe “CityCannotBifurcate ApprovaloftheHousing IncentivesWhichResultin ReductionofSiteDevelopmentStandardsfromtheRest oftheProject.” a. TheLetter statesthatthe procedureplaces “theCityinan untenable situation whereinthe City would possiblybindthemselvestoadecisionregardingtheapproval ofreductionof site development standardsbeforeconsideringthe legitimacy of therestoftheProject” andunder thisprocess theletterpositsthat “theCitywouldhave committed itselftoa projectwithout first considering theenvironmental impacts inviolationofCEQA.” i. Thispositionseems tomisunderstand theprocess. PlanningCommission hasbeen chargedwithpassingaresolution including environmental review, orinthiscase, an exemptionfromenvironmental review. AsthePlanning Commissionersareaware, the Planning Commission is reviewingthisproject beforetheCity Councilgrants the approval oftheconcessions. Thusthe Letter’s concern isbeingaddressedthrough the currentprocess. ii. Additionally, themannerofproceedingisexpresslyconsistentwithlocalregulations, including: 1. SLO Municipal CodeSection17.53.020requires PlanningCommissionapproval of projectslocatedwithintheFoothill Boulevard/SantaRosaSpecialPlanningArea. 2. Section17.90.040(A) states thattheCityCouncil shallapprove anyrequested concessions. 4. TheLetter’sDBLanalysis mustbecompletelydisregarded, asit appears tobecitinganoutdated versionof theDBL, andaccordingly, therequirementshighlighted nolonger apply. Infact, there have beenseveral updates tothelawsincetheburden ofprooffellontheapplicant asinsinuated in theLetter. a. Section 65915(d)(4) statesthat “Thecity… shallbear theburden ofproofforthedenialofa requestedconcession orincentive.” b. Additionally, the DBLSection65915(d)(1) states thattheCity “shall grant theconcession or incentiverequestedbytheapplicantunless thecity … makesawrittenfinding…” (emphasis 3 added). Theburden ison thecityto justifydenying theconcessionand notonthe applicant to justify grantingtheconcession. c. Itshouldalsobe notedthat theDBL expressly states thatrelaxationofdevelopment standards is “anidentifiable andactualcostreduction, consistent with subdivision (k)”, assubdivision (k) establishes “reduction ofsitedevelopment standards” asavalidconcession. Thismeansthatby lawtheconcessionisconsistent withsubdivision (k) andaclaim oftheconcession notresulting in “identifiable andactualcost reductions” mustberejected. d. Under theDBL, acitycan’t shifttheburden toan applicant todemonstrate thenecessityofthe concessions, asdemanded intheLetter. 5. TheLetterincorrectlystates “theapplicanthasmade noindication whetherthepurported verylow- incomestudioswillbe offeredfor sale or rentorthe proposed factorswhichwillmakethetwelve studios affordabletovery-lowincomehouseholds.” a. TheProjectDescription within thesubmittedplansetstatesexpresslythattheunitsare “rent- restrictedforVeryLowIncome Households… inaccordancewithCaliforniaGovernment Code Section65915.” Furthermore, thisprojectis nota condo project (andnosubdivisionissought), sobydefinition theunitsarenotavailable individuallyforsale. b. ContrarytotheLetter’sassertions, theDBLprovidesextensive detailregarding thefactors applicabletodetermining affordability toVeryLowIncome households. Seee.g. California GovernmentCode Section65915(c)(1). c. Totheextentthereisconcern regarding thelackofacondition ofapprovalto restrict the affordable units, wedonot objecttoinclusionofany suchcondition, assuchcondition already appliesbyvirtueofreference totheDBL. 6. TheLetteralso ignoresthefollowingcritical information applicable tothe Project contained within thesubmitted plansetunderProjectDescription: “Furthermore, bothoftheforegoing concessions arerequired under CAGovernmentCodeSection 65915(e)(1), whichrequiresthatacitymaynot applyanydevelopment standard thatwillhavetheeffectofphysically precluding theconstruction ofadevelopment. Itwould bephysically impossibletoconstructtheproject withthedensity bonus asrequired bystate law.” a. Whilesuch ananalysisisnotrequired, itshouldbenoted that eveniftheconcessions were not granted, theywould additionallyberequired underCAGovernmentCodeSection 65915(e)(1), asitwould bephysically impossible tobuild theprojectwiththedensity bonuswithoutsuch waiverofdevelopmentstandards. i. Giventhesubstantial siteconstraints, suchanalysisisstraightforward and simple. Approximately 1/3oftheunitsarelocatedontheaddedfloor ofthe building. Thedensitybonus isapproximately 1/3oftheunits. Iftheheightconcession wasnotprovided, the densitybonus couldnotbeaccommodated. Thelot coverage exception worksinasimilarway, aswithoutthatconcession, fewerunitswouldfitper floor. 7. Inreviewingthisprocess, we believe thattheCommission should alsoconsider SLOMunicipalCode Section17.90.070(A), whichstatesthat Projectssubjectto thedensitybonusprovisions “shall receivehighpriority processing, totheextentallowedbylaw.” Pleaseletmeknowifyouhave anyquestions orcomments. Thanks. 4 Notice of Exemption To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of San Luis Obispo 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Community Development Department Sacramento, CA 95814 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 County Clerk County of San Luis Obispo 1144 Monterey Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Applicant Address: LR Real Estate Investment Group, LLC 400 Continental Boulevard, 6th Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Email: lr@lrdevelopmentgroup.com Phone Number: (310) 266-2873 Project Title: 790 Foothill Redevelopment Project Location - Specific: 790 and 796 Foothill Boulevard and 133 and 215 N. Chorro Project Location - City: San Luis Obispo Project Location - County: San Luis Obispo Description of Project: Construction of a 4 story mixed-use project consisting of 78 residential units and 6,800 square feet of retail space with 155 parking spaces. The project includes a 35% density bonus, a 43 foot maximum height development standard waiver and a 90% lot coverage waiver. The project is described in greater detail in the addendum attached hereto. Name of Public Agency Approving the Project: City of San Luis Obispo Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out the Project: LR Real Estate Investment Group, LLC Exempt Status (check one): Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268; Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c) Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Infill Development Project, Class 32, Section 15332 Statutory Exemptions. State code number: General Rule Exemption (Sec. 15061(b)(3)) Reasons why project is exempt: The project complies with the conditions prescribed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, as more particularly described in the attached addendum. Lead Agency Contact Person: Rachel Cohen Area Code/Telephone/Ext. (805) 781-7574 Email: rcohen@slocity.org If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: ______________________________ Date: ___________________ Title: Name, Title Signed by Lead Agency Date Received for Filing at OPR: __________ Signed by Applicant Revised December 2016 ADDENDUM TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 790 FOOTHILL REDEVELOPMENT I. Project Description The project proposes to redevelop 790 Foothill, 796 Foothill, 133 N. Chorro and 215 N. Chorro in the City of San Luis Obispo (APNs: 052-041-077; 052-041-084; 052-041-085; 052-041-083) by constructing a new four-story mixed-use building with 6,800 square feet of ground floor commercial/retail space, 78 residential units, and 155 parking spaces. The project utilizes a mechanical parking lift system to provide 123 of the parking spaces (for residential tenants use only). Twelve of the units in the project will be affordable for very-low income households in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915, which results in the project being granted a 35% density bonus. Two waivers of development standards have been applied in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(e)(1): (i) the construction of a 43-foot tall structure where 35 feet is normally allowed; and (ii) an increase in allowable lot coverage from 75% to 90%. As discussed below, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 (Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects). II. Categorical Exemption This project is categorically exempt under Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines as a Class 32 In- Fill Development Project. Section 15332 provides that projects shall be exempt from the provisions of CEQA if they are characterized as in-fill development meeting the following conditions: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. Analysis: The project is consistent with all applicable general plan designations and policies as well as zoning designation and regulations. The project site is located in the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Special Planning Area, as described in Section 8.2.1 of the City’s General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”), and complies with the guidelines and objectives applicable to the project site as a result of its inclusion within the Special Planning Area. Furthermore, the project-site is zoned C-C-SF (Community Commercial), a designation that permits high-density, mixed-use residential and commercial development, such as the project. After applying the density bonus provided for under California Government Code Section 65915 (discussed below), the project complies with all density limitations in the C-C-SF zone. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915, the project proponent has received two waivers of development standards – to exceed the height limit in the C-C-SF zone by 8 feet, and to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 15%. California Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) requires the City to grant these waivers, and Section 8.2.1 of the LUCE specifically refers to such waivers as being a desirable mechanism for facilitating redevelopment of the area. Inclusion of the height and lot coverage incentives will makes the project consistent with all applicable general plan policies and zoning regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. Analysis: The project is located within the City of San Luis Obispo. The project site is approximately 1.34 acres large, and is therefore less than 5 acres. The site is surrounded on all sides by urban uses, including high density residential and commercial uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Analysis: The site is already developed for urban uses, and is surrounded by similar urban uses. The site has no known value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Analysis: Approval of the project would not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. With respect to traffic, a study was conducted confirming that the project will have no significant effects. A copy of that study is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo via the Lead Agency Contact Person. The project will be compatible with the existing urban environment and high-density residential and commercial surrounding uses and thus will not present any noise issues. The project will follow all applicable air and water quality regulations. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the project will result in any significant effects related to noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Analysis: The site is currently developed and already served by all required utilities and public services. The City has also confirmed that there are sufficient utilities and public services and capacity available to serve the site once redeveloped with the project. III. NO EXCEPTIONS LIMIT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION TO THE PROJECT The project does not fall within any of the identified exceptions triggering the need for environmental review under CEQA. The exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 – specifically, Location, Cumulative Impact, Significant Effect, Scenic Highways, Hazardous Waste Sites and Historical Resources (collectively, “Exceptions”) – do not apply for the following reasons: (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -- a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Analysis: This exception applies only to CEQA exemptions under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11. Since the proposed project qualifies for a Class 32 Urban In-Fill exemption, this criterion does not apply. While further analysis of this exception is therefore not required, it should be noted that the exception would not apply regardless, as there are no environmental resources of hazardous or critical concern that are designated, precisely mapped or officially adopted in the vicinity of the project site, or that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. This exception does not apply. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. Analysis: This project does not have any known significant cumulative impacts with successive projects of the same type in the same place. As demonstrated under the Section 15332(a) analysis above (general plan and zoning consistency), the proposed project is consistent with the general plan and zoning for the project site. Accordingly, the City has already studied the cumulative impacts of such projects, and concluded that they are less than significant. The relatively minor increases in project height and density resulting from application of the density bonus under Section 65915 will not result in any significant impacts, even in combination with potential successive projects. Therefore, this exception does not apply. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Analysis: There are no known unusual circumstances applicable to the proposed project or the project site which may result in a significant effect on the environment. The subject project site is similar to other sites located throughout the City (and especially within the Special Planning Area), with similar zoning and/or designated for similar uses, and does not give rise to any unusual circumstances that would cause this exception to apply. With respect to views from the site, because the City is surrounded by various peaks, the location of this site with respect to those peaks is not an unusual circumstance. To the contrary, underdeveloped sites (the ones most likely to be developed) usually have similar relationships with the various peaks surrounding the City. There are no unusual circumstances, and therefore, this exception therefore does not apply. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. Analysis: The project site is not located within, or within proximity to, a state-designated scenic highway, and the project site itself has no trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar visual resources. Therefore, this exception does not apply. (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Analysis: The project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Therefore, this exception does not apply. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Analysis: Neither the existing buildings on the project site nor the project site itself are considered historic resources or included in any register or list of historic resources. There are no historic resources adjacent to the project site, and no such resources would in any way be impacted by the project. This exception does not apply. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA under the Class 32, In- Fill Exemption, and no exception under the CEQA Guidelines, including Section 15300.2, applies.