AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

24 “urban decay.” (See Holland and Knight letter dated March 15, 2017 for further analysis, included as Attachment 7.) Even then, there is no presumption of such an impact, and actual evidence is required as opposed to argument or speculation. The appeal argues that local businesses fear being displaced and are experiencing a shrinking customer base but provides no supporting evidence. While there is a retail component of the project, at 1400 square feet, that additional commercial space is unlikely to have any measurable impact on existing commercial businesses in the area. To the contrary, the influx of additional residents in the DTPP area could instead have a positive economic effect on local retailers through additional walk-in business. With regard to impacts from the residential units, the project proposes an Affordable Housing Plan to include 35 affordable units at the low-income level (not three units as stated in the appeal) and will pay $1,237,852 in Affordable Housing Impact Fees. In so doing, the project complies with an alternative to payment alone of the Affordable Housing Impact Fee. The applicant is also voluntarily providing $250,000 to the proposed Habitat for Humanity project at 612 Jefferson. The appeal also quotes at length from a 2015 study that characterized the DTPP as failing to provide for affordable housing. But as explained above, the DTPP was amended in 2016 to require that of the 2500 net new dwelling units, 15% (or 375 units) are to be deed-restricted and affordable to households earning an income of 80% or less of the area median income. So, not only does the DTPP provide for affordable housing, but the project itself proposes on-site affordable units. 5. The Project Will Not Create Public Services Impacts that Require a New or Supplemental EIR Appellant’s Contention: The City has not conducted the necessary analysis regarding the need for new school facilities, nor the physical deterioration of existing parkland and recreational facilities and regional parks, nor regarding emergency services. The City has not addressed that response times are currently being exceeded. (Appeal, pp. 4, 20-21.) City Response: Regarding schools, the DTPP EIR (pp. 8-2 through 8-21) concluded that there would be no significant impacts as a result of the DTPP. The project is in compliance with all applicable DTPP standards and, as a result, no additional impacts on schools are anticipated. There is no evidence that additional schools will need to be constructed, beyond that studied in conjunction with the DTPP. In accordance with Senate Bill 50 (1997), the project would be required to pay mandatory school impact fees. Moreover, under this legislation (specifically Sections 65995 and 65996 of the Government Code), the City cannot use the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals regarding the development, use or planning of real property. Regarding parks and recreation facilities, the DTPP EIR (pp. 8-14 and 8-15) concluded that there would be no significant impacts resulting from the DTPP or projects built 8.A. - Page 24