HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-2014 ac - rowley saunders whitneyph1i
i
JAN 14 2014
i
TF -LUCE Minority Report
January 14, 2014
AGENDA
SUBJECT: Draft Land Use Element Review � `[ _)f -RESPONDENCE
INTRODUCTION
We are not opposed to new neighborhoods of diverse character, mixed uses an, d /n easeVMs /ty
being created through annexation. Nor are we opposed to new neighborhoods being created in
undeveloped areas within the city specifically identified for increased density and development.
We are, however, opposed to adding mixed uses, a variety of housing types and creating a range
of densities in our established neighborhoods.
The Task Force was assured early -on that our established residential neighborhoods would be
protected. Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. Proposed changes to the LUE
encourage increasing both density and non - residential uses in the city's established residential
neighborhoods — even if those neighborhoods oppose the density and use changes. This seems to
be consistent with enabling the large -city planning theory of "complete neighborhoods"
(appropriate for San Francisco's large neighborhoods) to be inappropriately applied to the
significantly smaller neighborhoods of a small city of 44,000.
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONS
For the past twenty years residents of San Luis Obispo have depended on the protections for
established neighborhoods that are found in the current Land Use Element (LUE). These
neighborhood protections assume even greater importance as our City's exceptionally low number
of owner - occupied residences continues to decline.
Neighborhood protections were weakened or eliminated by expanding the definitions of words, by
removing content that provided protection for established neighborhoods and by adding goals,
policies and programs that encourage compact, mixed -use neighborhoods with a variety of
housing densities in all residential zones. We believe that established neighborhoods must be
protected from such retrofitting.
GOALS
Two Community Goals were added that we strongly believe must be modified in order to better
reflect the desires of city residents and foster or maintain the stability of our established
neighborhoods. Our recommended additions to these goals are shown as underlined text.
1. Goal #10 (page PH1 -46). Support statewide and regional efforts that the City deems to be
locally appropriate to create more sustainable communities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and develop transportation systems that support all modes of circulation to meet the needs of the
Cam.
2. Goal # 34 (page PH1 -48). Create compact, mixed -use neighborhoods within the City's
expansion areas that locate housing, jobs, recreation, and other daily needs in close proximity to
one another.
DEFINITIONS
1. Infill. Infill is defined in the General Plan as "development on vacant sites (emphasis added)
which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the City limits existing when
this element was adopted." Infill Housing is defined as "Development of housing on vacant lots
(emphasis added) within the City limits on property zoned for such uses. (See General Plan
Glossary) However, in paragraph 2.1.1* (page PHI -80 of the draft), it appears that "infill" is being
used as a generic term that also includes "redevelopment, rehabilitation* and adaptive reuse
efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas."
In January 2012, Council directed that definitions of terms should be consistent with the present
LUCE and any proposed changes should be treated as any other proposed language changes in
public hearings. For clarity and to avoid confusion or misinterpretation, we believe it is critically
important to include the definitions of "infill" and "infill housing" in the body of the LUE as well as
in the Glossary. We, also, believe the concepts "redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive
reuse" should not be applied to our established residential neighborhoods.
2. Neighborhood Enhancement.
Although no definition of enhance or enhancement was in the General Plan, Webster's defines it
as "to make greater, as in cost, value, attractiveness, etc.; heighten, improve, augment, etc."
Common interpretation with regard to our neighborhoods is that it means improving the quality of
life so that all residents can have the peace and quiet they need in order to enjoy their home and
neighborhood.
Paragraph 2.1.1 (page 131-11 -80, see note 1) states that "Neighborhood Enhancement" is "infill
development, redevelopment, rehabilitation ** and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute
positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas." It states that the City should promote
these activities, but does not define "contributing positively" nor clarify to whom. Although this
paragraph was quoted above, under Infill, it is restated here to demonstrate how words that
conveyed one meaning in our current Land Use Element have been reused, but now have a
different meaning. This paragraph should be deleted.
What contributes positively to the various existing neighborhoods is extremely subjective. These
proposed "enhancements" may not be considered appropriate or desirable to the City's many,
unique established neighborhoods.
3. Neighborhood Amenities.
Paragraph 2.1.6, "Neighborhood Amenities" (page PH1 -79) is a list of characteristics, not a list of
amenities. Neighborhood amenities are things like parks and nearby schools. The Task Force
spent the greater part of one meeting discussing the desirable characteristics of residential
neighborhoods and concluded that only one can be applied to all neighborhoods, safety.
* Note 1: Paragraph 2.1.1 on PHI -80 appears to be misnumbered and probably should be numbered 2.1.7.
* *Note 2: An FHA home rehabilitation program allows, among other things, a one - family dwelling to be
converted to up to a four - family dwelling. It can be used by prospective homeowners or investors.
2
The proposed list of neighborhood "amenities" includes in the first bullet point "a mix of housing
type (and) styles, density and affordability." This bullet point must be deleted.
Mixing housing types is a planning concept, not an amenity. A mix of housing styles, depending on
the disparity in mass, scale and height, solar access and overlook /privacy issues , may or may not
be an amenity in a neighborhood. A mix of densities within our established R -1 and R -2
neighborhoods is not seen as an amenity, especially by residents of impacted neighborhoods. And
affordability is primarily based on market rate. The things these items have in common is that
they are all characteristics of "complete neighborhoods."
We see deletion of this bullet point becoming more important because the proposed policy 2.4.2,
Density Changes (page PHI -89) states, "The City shall approve re- zonings that increase density in
existing residential areas only if it finds that the following are not adversely impacted:
neighborhood character and identity; compatibility of land use; impact on services and facilities
(including schools). In addition, the City shall find that proposed density changes meet policies
related to neighborhood amenities (Policy 2.1.6); compatible development (Policy 2.2.9) and
residential project objectives (Policy 2.2.11) (emphasis added)." We see these policies as
intertwining and building on each other to allow, maybe promote, up- zoning in our established
residential neighborhoods.
4. Compatible Development.
Paragraph 2.2.9, Compatible Development, (page PHI -82) states that compatibility shall be
evaluated using the criteria provided. One of the criteria, sub - paragraph H, states "A mix of
housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is desirable." The explanation
accompanying this addition is that the paragraph was revised to expand the definition of
compatibility. We do not think the definition of compatibility needs to be expanded; we think the
result of doing so would be detrimental to our established residential neighborhoods. Therefore,
we think sub - paragraph H should be deleted.
5. Interim Open Space.
Interim Open Space was deleted in this update. We strongly recommend that it be retained. As
new and unforseen situations and opportunities arise in the future, this is a unique designation
that should be available to the City as a "tool in the land use tool box." It allows the City the
critical flexibility that other land use designations do not have.
6. Lastly, we need a well thought out, resident - initiated definition of "quality neighborhoods."
That term seems to mean one thing to residents and another thing to non - residents.
SUMMARY
Although the Task Force rejected "Complete Neighborhoods" as not being appropriate for San Luis
Obispo and Council eliminated the "Neighborhood Areas," the concepts associated with "complete
neighborhoods" permeate the draft LUE. It was impossible in the time available to identify every
instance where such concepts were inserted into the document. However, staff and consultant
personnel are sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to find and remove the language that states or
implies that the concepts and changes associated with "complete neighborhoods" should or must
be applied to our established neighborhoods. This should be done before the EIR review is begun.
3
Adding goals, policies and programs that promote and provide for the retrofitting of the City's
established residential neighborhoods with mixed uses and a different variety of housing densities
and types could place residents in a virtually untenable position. They would be required to try to
defend their neighborhoods against new City policies that promote and provide for neighborhood
changes that residents of that neighborhood may strongly oppose.
The right of established neighborhoods to protect their unique character should not be weakened
by such proposed new changes to the LUE. There has been no outcry from the City's established
neighborhoods to initiate such changes, nor has there been any input from any neighborhood
organization supporting such changes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We strongly encourage Council to:
1. Modify Goals # 10 and 34 as shown on page 1, above, and revise the draft LUE as necessary
to conform to the goals.
2. Delete the paragraph 2.1.1 that is on page PHI- 80 (that probably should have been
numbered 2.1.7). Also, direct that the current glossary definitions of "infill" and "infill housing" be
used within the body of the LUE as well as retained in the General Plan Glossary.
3. Ensure that "mixed uses, a variety of housing types and a range of densities" are not added
to paragraphs related to our established residential neighborhoods.
4. Delete the first bullet point in paragraph 2.1.6 and change the heading to "Neighborhood
Characteristics."
5. Delete sub - paragraph 2.2.9 H.
6. Delete paragraph 2.4.2.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney
4