HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2018 Item 1, Kan
Goodwin, Heather
From:Pearl Kan <pkan@wittwerparkin.com>
Sent:Monday,
To:Advisory Bodies
Cc:Cohen, Rachel; Davidson, Doug; Ansolabehere, Jon; William Parkin
Subject:Comment Letter for Agenda Item 1 July 25, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing - 790
Foothill
Attachments:2018 07 23 Letter to Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 790 Foothill .pdf
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Please see comments submitted by Foothill Blvd Civic Defense regarding Agenda Item 1, 790 Foothill Blvd, for the
Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday July 25, 2018.
Thank you,
Pearl
1
July 23, 2018
SENT VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
advisorybodies@slocity.org
Re: July 25, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Blvd (File Number USE-1187-2017)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
This law firm represents Foothill Blvd Civic Defense and submits this letter on its behalf.
The Planning Commission should continue this item until proper environmental review is
conducted for 790 Foothill Boulevard (Project). Environmental review is required because the
Project violates General Plan policies under the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element
rendering the claimed exemptions inapplicable. In addition, the City may not bifurcate the issue
regarding the housing incentives for separate City Council consideration from the rest of the
Project in violation of CEQA.
Similarly, the Planning Commission should also continue this item until the applicant can
demonstrate that the two housing incentives requested, increased height allowance from 35 to 43
feet and increased building coverage from 75% to 90%, are both necessary for the construction
of the twelve (12) purported affordable studios. Finally, the applicant has made no indication
whether the purported very low-income studios will be offered for sale or for rent or the
proposed factors which will make the twelve studios affordable to very-low income households,
as required under City Code § 17.90.030(B).
I. Claimed CEQA Exemptions Do Not Apply Because the Project Does Not Meet the
Threshold Criteria Required for the Exemptions and Environmental Review is
Required
a. The Project is Inconsistent with Several General Plan Policies Set Forth in
the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element
The City claims that environmental review is not required because the Project qualifies
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 2
for (1) the residential infill exemption as well as (2) the in-fill exemption pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines sections 15195 and 15332. As a threshold matter, “[i]n order to qualify for an
exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194, or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the
threshold criteria set forth [under CEQA Guidelines § 15192]. The project must be consistent
with: (1) any applicable general plan…. and (2) any applicable zoning ordinance.” (CEQA
Guidelines § 15192(a)(1)-(2), emphasis added.) Similarly, the alternative exemption claimed
under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 is only applicable where a project “is consistent with the
applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15332(a).) As explained
below, because the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policies set forth under the City’s
Conservation and Open Space Element, these exemptions do not apply and environmental
review is required.
The Project is wholly inconsistent with several policies under the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Element of the General Plan (COSE). The COSE protects views to and from
public places, including scenic roadways. (COSE Policy 9.2.1.) Specifically, the General Plan
prohibits development that will wall off scenic roadways and block views: “Development
projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.” (COSE Policy 9.2.1(A).)
Foothill Boulevard and Chorro Street are each expressly identified as scenic roadways in
Figure 11 of the COSE and the Project is proposed on the very corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Chorro Street. The proposed project is 43 feet, which is 8 feet higher than what is allowed under
Community Commercial zoning. As such, the Project will wall off both Foothill Boulevard and
Chorro Street, and block views of Bishop Peak, one of the famous Morros, explicitly identified
as worthy of visual protection in the COSE. The proposed Project violates the express policies
identified in the COSE which prohibits development that will wall off scenic roadways and block
views.
In addition, the Project is inconsistent with all of the below COSE policies (emphasis
added).
9.1.2. Urban development. The City will implement the following principle and will
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so: urban development should reflect its
architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires
deliberate design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and
neighboring urban development, and that are compatible with historical and
architectural resources. Plans for sub-areas of the city may require certain architectural
styles.
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 3
9.1.5. View protection in new development. The City will include in 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.
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. In
particular, the route segments shown in Figure 11 are designated as scenic roadways.
A. Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
B. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude
on or clutter views, consistent with safety needs.
C. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street
trees shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features.
9.3. Programs
The City shall do the following to protect and enhance views, and will encourage others
to do so, as appropriate:
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.
COSE Policy 9.3.4 sets forth the mandatory obligation for the City to “[c]onduct
environmental review and architectural review consistent with General Plan goals and policies
regarding visual impacts and quality.” Policy 9.3.4 is prefaced by the obligation set forth under
Policy 9.3, “The City shall…” The COSE expressly requires environmental review for projects
that implicate the visual setting, as this Project does. The claimed exemptions do not apply.
b. The Project is Inconsistent with Applicable Zoning Designation and
Regulations
Separately, the Project does not qualify for either exemption under CEQA because it is
inconsistent with applicable zoning. The Project’s underlying zoning is C-C-SF (Community
Commercial with a Special Focus Overlay). For districts with a special focus overlay, the
special focus overlay requires all “development within the special planning areas shall adhere to
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 4
the requirements of the underlying zone district and the provisions for each of the respective
special planning areas.” (City Code § 17.53.020.) The underlying zone, C-C, or Community
Commercial specifies the following relevant zoning requirements:
Maximum height: Thirty-five feet
Maximum coverage: Seventy-five percent
The proposed Project exceeds the height standard which will increase by eight (8) feet to
43 feet, and the coverage will increase by 15 percent for a total of 90% building coverage. This
makes this Project ineligible for the CEQA exemptions claimed. The applicant may argue that
the alternative concessions render the Project consistent with zoning pursuant to the Density
Bonus Law. But as discussed below, the applicant has not provided any information to
demonstrate that without the alternative concessions, the twelve (12) affordable studios cannot
be built. And, the Project is still inconsistent with the General Plan policies identified above.
The City’s claim of exemption from environmental review is wholly improper and it
would constitute an abuse of discretion to proceed with the Project without proper environmental
review.
II. The City Cannot Bifurcate Approval of the Housing Incentives Which Result in
Reduction of Site Development Standards from the Rest of the Project
The draft resolution sets forth that the “Planning Commission’s determination regarding
the project is contingent upon the City Council’s approval of the 35% density bonus and two
affordable housing incentives…which is subject to review by the City Council under a separate
application (AFFH-1518-2018.)” (Packet Page 16, Draft Resolution Section 2, No. 7.) This
procedure improperly bifurcates the whole of the Project from the purview of the City Council
and places the City in an untenable situation wherein the City would possibly bind themselves to
a decision regarding the approval of reduction of site development standards before considering
the legitimacy of the rest of the Project. Project review should not be separated in this manner
and if in fact the City approves application AFFH-1518-2018 prior to considering, inter alia,
environmental review, the City would have committed itself to a project without first considering
the environmental impacts in violation of CEQA. Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008)
45 Cal.4th 116, 134.
III. There is No Indication that the Project Requires Two Housing Concessions to
Provide Twelve Affordable Studios
The Density Bonus Law allows the City to reject a reduction in site development
standards upon a finding that the “concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and
actual cost reductions…to provide for affordable housing costs.” (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1)(A).)
July 23, 2018
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item Number 1: 790 Foothill Boulevard
Page 5
There is simply no showing made by the applicant that the concessions or incentives result in
identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for the twelve affordable studios.
The City Code requires the following information to be included in a request for a density
bonus: “Whether the dwellings will be offered for sale or for rent” and “The proposed sale price,
financing terms, rental rates or other factors which will make the dwellings affordable to very-
low, lower and moderate income households.” (City Code § 17.90.030(B)(5)-(6).) This required
information is wholly lacking. Similarly, there is no condition of approval that restricts the
twelve affordable studios to very-low income households, upon which the applicant received the
35% density bonus.
IV. The City Will Not Violate the Housing Accountability Act if it Requires the
Applicant to Demonstrate Why the Housing Incentives are Necessary for Economic
Feasibility
The Planning Commission need not make a final decision on the Project at this meeting.
In fact, the Planning Commission should continue the item until there is sufficient information
available to make a reasoned decision, which there currently is not.
As argued in this letter, the applicant has made no showing that the housing incentives in
the form of height exception and increased building coverage are necessary for the feasibility of
this affordable housing project. The Planning Commission is well within its authority to request
the applicant make this threshold showing as well as for the applicant to attempt a building
design that is more aligned with community designed standards prior to considering the merits of
the Project.
It should be emphasized that if the Planning Commission requires the applicant to
demonstrate why the housing incentives are required for the economic feasibility of the Project
or requires additional design alternatives that can accommodate affordable housing, the
admonitions under the Housing Accountability Act are not implicated. This is because request
of this highly relevant information does not result in project denial. Nor does it result in the City
conditioning approval in a manner that renders the Project infeasible for development for the use
of very-low income households in violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The pertinent
section of the Housing Accountability Act is provided below:
A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project….for very low
[households], or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development
project infeasible for development for the use of very low [households], including
through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon
a preponderance of the evidence in the record… (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(1).)