HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/2/2021 Item 7b, Cooper
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Allan Cooper <
To:Codron, Michael; Cohen, Rachel; E-mail Council Website
Subject:Letter to the San Luis Obispo City Council
Attachments:910_30_21...lettertocouncil.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Michael and Rachel -
Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the
City Council? This letter pertains to the City Council's
November 2, 2021 review of Public Hearing Item #7b:
"Review and Amend the Zoning Regulations to Ensure
Compliance with the Supportive Housing Streamlining Act
(AB 2162)." We would also like to have this letter placed in
the City's Correspondence File. Thanks!
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 City Council, Michael Codron, Community Development
Director, Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Re: November 2, 2021 Public Hearing Item #7b - Review Of Proposed Amendments
To Municipal Code 11 Title 17 Program 8.18: Review And Amend The Zoning
Regulations Within One Year Of Housing Element Adoption To Ensure
Compliance With: The Supportive Housing Streamlining Act (AB 2162) To Allow
Supportive Housing A Use-By-Right In Zones Where Multi-Family And Mixed
Uses Are Permitted
From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date: October 30, 2021
Honorable Mayor Stewart and Council Members -
We would like to extend our thanks to staff for incorporating a goodly number of our
suggestions into the main text of this document.
However, with regards to your October 13 review of draft zoning regulations consisting of
Objective Design Standards For Qualifying Housing Projects, we would like to call your
attention to one major discrepancy that will have a profound impact on the look and feel of our
Historical Downtown District. The following is required of all qualifying housing projects outside
the Downtown Commercial Zone but not for those projects within the Downtown Commercial
Zone: “Buildings three or more stories shall step-back the building mass a minimum of five (5)
feet for fifty (50) percent of the building facade above the second story.” We believe that the
reverse should be true. Scale and perceived height are critical considerations for the
preservation and contextual fit of our Downtown Historic District while it could be argued
that height step backs for buildings in our surrounding suburban developments are far less
critical. We urge you to reconsider this.
There are other lesser concerns that we have with regards to perceived height and scale. The
following two Downtown Design Guidelines are missing in this document even though they are
clearly quantifiable and objective: “In no case may the height of a building at the back of
sidewalk exceed the width of the adjoining right-of-way” and “The building above 50 feet
should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are not visible to pedestrians
on the sidewalk across the street from the building’s frontage”.
We recognize that an FAR of 3.75-4.00 for buildings exceeding 50 feet in height will normally
result in setbacks above the 2nd or 3rd floors. But we cannot be assured that these setbacks
will always be oriented toward the street. And an FAR of 3.00 for a 3 story tall building could
result in no setbacks whatsoever though setbacks will necessarily occur for a 4 story tall
building.
Though staff has been successful in addressing some of our concerns related to privacy and
“eyes-on” territoriality, we are still disappointed that two other quantifiable and objective Design
Guidelines have not found their way into this document. These guidelines pertain to climate
change “To reduce global warming and the urban heat island effect, buildings shall cover at
least 75% of the building’s exterior with a cool wall material that reflects at least 60% of
sunlight” and family-oriented housing . In response to the latter, the ARC provided direction to
staff to include required common open space with enhanced amenities for residential
development located within the Downtown District. We agree with the ARC as it is our view that
front line workers needing convenient access to their jobs would most likely be looking for
affordable housing downtown. However that housing would most certainly need to be “family
friendly”. Thank you for your time and consideration in addressing this most critical issue.