Dear SB City Planning Commission,
Citizens Planning Association appreciates the opportunity to comment today during the Concept Review of the redevelopment of Paseo Nuevo mall at 70l State Street. We urge the City to keep in mind that the City Charter limits the heights of buildings in the city. In 1972 city voters approved an amendment to the Charter “to incorporate the current building height limits into the City Charter.” The ballot measure passed by an overwhelming majority of voters.
The opening lines of the amendment state “It is hereby declared the policy of the City that high buildings are inimical to the basic residential and historical character of the City.” In the Zoning Ordinance, the height limit in commercial zones has been 60 feet for many decades. The Paseo Nuevo complex is commercially zoned.
CPA urges the commission to stand by the Charter’s provision regarding building height limits. State mandates should not overweigh our City Charter. In other communities with city charters, it has been determined that the city charter does supersede these “one size fits all”state mandates. Affordable housing is needed, but not to result in the destruction of a community’s character and this has been determined in other cities. The City owns the Paseo Nuevo land; you can set non-destructive standards. The former Macy’s building in the mall is 60 feet high–the maximum. The developers propose 70 feet and 75 feet. At a time when the State Mandates are demanding we ignore height limits, on this city owned property, the city should adhere to city policies. We can’t fight these terrible Builder Remedy monstrosities if we don’t even require the existing limits on our own property.
CPA also questions the use of the term ‘community benefit’ What exactly does this mean? If an EIR finds any class 1 impacts that cannot be mitigated, will staff then tell decision-makers this can be used as an overriding consideration. 100% affordable units might be a community benefit. A larger percentage of market rate housing is not a community benefit.
Lastly, CPA has concerns about the tax status of this project on city owned land. For a project of this magnitude, there needs to be adequate fees/taxes to pay for the additional services that will be required for this new residential population, such as schools, resources such as water, , road, parking, etc.
We support the Housing Authority arguments about keeping the units affordable. CPA looks forward to the revitalization of this property but hope the City will focus on the affordable housing component of the project.
Marell Brooks, President
Citizens Plannning Association