HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/2020 Item 3, Cooper
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Allan Cooper <
To:Advisory Bodies; Fukushima, Adam; Read, Chris
Subject:July 16, 2020 Meeting Agenda Item #3: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN FOR COMMUNITY
RECOVERY
Attachments:307_12_20...lettertoactivetrans.pdf
Dear Adam -
Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the
Active Transportation Committee? This letter pertains to
Item #3 on their July 16 meeting agenda. Also, I'd like this
letter placed in the City's correspondence file. Thanks!
- Allan
1
Save Our Downtown
______________________________________________________________________________
Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design, livability and economic
success of downtown San Luis Obispo.
To: San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee, Adam Fukushima and Chris
Read
Re: July 16, 2020 Meeting Agenda Item #3: Climate Action Plan For Community
Recovery
From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date: July 12, 2020
Within the latest draft version of SLO’s Climate Action Plan For Community Recovery
“Connected 5.1” is recommending flexible zoning requirements for the Downtown which
will result in higher-density and smaller residential units. But the City should seriously
reassess this goal in light of the circumstances we currently find ourselves. Given the
compelling scientific evidence that the adverse effects of population growth, combined with
irreversible climate change, contribute to the increase in, and proliferation of, zoonotic diseases,
we should plan for the probability that there may never be a “post pandemic world”. A
recent Harris Poll found that nearly a third of Americans are considering relocating to less
crowded places. Harvard researchers and urban planners are now urging us to consider how a
more dispersed city can thrive.This pandemic is causing a massive and permanent shift to
remote work. So “anchoring residents downtown near their work” no longer makes sense. The
questions you should therefore ask yourselves are as follows: 1) Is it not irresponsible to now
promote housing where future tenants must live in cramped, close quarters?; and 2) Is it not
irresponsible to promote housing that can only be accessed via elevators, narrow corridors and
stairs where social distancing is nearly impossible?
“Connected 5.1” is also recommending the reduction of single occupancy vehicles to the
point where they will account for only 50 percent of trips in the city by 2030. Moreover,
“Connected 4.3 and 4.4” is promoting an increase in transit ridership. Even though this
document is promoting a shift to electric cars, particularly electric cars which may be
significantly less carbon-intensive in terms of how they are manufactured, the argument for
reducing single occupancy vehicles is based on the erroneous assumption that all car travel will
remain carbon-intensive and high cost. Again, as related to the probability that there may never
be a “post pandemic world”, why are we promoting public transit as an alternative to single
occupancy vehicles. Given the fact that the use of public transport has led to the spread of
COVID-19, the question we should be asking is 1) Is it not irresponsible in a pandemic world to
discourage the use of personalized transportation?; and 2) Is it not irresponsible during a
pandemic to continue to place ride share, bus drivers and other transit workers at risk of
infection? Thank you!