Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-13-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Cooper)Meeting: KV-- 1, 13 , l--�- Item: To: SLO Architectural Review Commission RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Presentation and information session regarding State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act From: Allan Cooper Date: February 10, 2017 Honorable Chair and Commissioners - I would like to argue that neither the ARC, the PC or the Council have limited discretion to modify or reject projects which provide affordable housing when there are unresolved traffic congestion issues yet to be resolved'. I would also like to assure the ARC that its purview clearly encompasses health, safety and welfare issues pertaining to site constraints. I would like to use 22 Chorro as an example. Former Mayor Jan Marx, in her February 3, 2017 letter to the Council stated with regards to the 22 Chorro St. appeal the following: "...changes to the Government Code ... have severely reduced the amount of discretion City Councils have to reject projects which provide affordable housing ... The public agency is required to grant the concession or incentive, unless it can make a finding based on objective facts that the concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact... Besides having the draconian results requiring approval of such projects unless Council makes these factual findings, violations of the General Plan, policies or Design Guidelines are specifically called out by these laws as not qualifying as `specific adverse impacts'." However, your approval of 22 Chorro Street last December 5, 2016 was based on the following finding: "That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood." This finding undermines City Attorney Christine Dietrick's argument during the February 7th appeal hearing that your purview was limited to scale and character and did not include issues pertaining to health, safety and welfare. With this in mind, your purview could have included discussing mitigations that would relieve congestion related to traffic flow or parking spill-over. 'The Housing Accountability Act states the following: 'The State Density Bonus Law requires a City to waive or modify development and zoning standards that would physically preclude the utilization of the density bonus, incentives, and concessions that the applicant is entitled to on a particular site and may only be denied if the following findings are met (Gov Code section 65915(e). Per Government Code 65915(e) "Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2 6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code)." Per Chapter 2.6 Congestion Management [65088 - 65089.10] (Chapter 2.6 added by Stats. 1989, Ch. 106, Sec. 9. ) "(h) The removal of regulatory barriers to promote infill housing, transit -oriented development, or mixed use commercial development does not preclude a city or county from holding a public hearing nor finding that an individual infill project would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns." Or you could have come to the conclusion that these specific adverse impacts could not be mitigated enabling you to continue with direction or deny the project. Even though the density bonus, height exception and parking reductions approved by Council involve waiving the City's development and zoning standards, there is nothing in these State laws that would relieve you from complying with the City's congestion management program which involves the following: Land Use Element 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." Circulation Element 14.1.2. Neighborhood Protection "The City shall facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high intensity uses." Nor should you have ignored unresolved traffic safety concerns at this intersection. Mayor Marx stated in her letter that the LUCE EIR included traffic studies stating that Foothill, Broad and Chorro could handle increased traffic. However it is also an objective fact that according to the City's Speed Survey Report, there is a large volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic due to proximity to California Polytechnic University and that 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. 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. It is also an objective fact that the Foothill/Chorro intersection is operating at Peak Level of Service (LOS) D, i.e., "approaching unstable flow" and that any additional traffic load could reduce its Level of Service to an unacceptable (LOS) E, i.e., "where any incident will create serious delays and drivers' level of comfort becomes poor". It is understandable that you could not have known all of this back in December because staff did not provide you with this necessary information. Because of this, both you and the Council fell short in your responsibility to increase public safety by reducing congestion on public streets and minimizing impacts to public street parking. Thank you!