Loading...
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).)