HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2015 PC Agenda Correspondence - Item 1 (Riggs)RECEIVED
NOV 02 2015
To: Maier, John Paul
Subject: RE: PC 10 -28 -15 Agenda Correspondence for Item 1 (Villarreal), (Keisler), & (Salem)
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Billy Riggs i]
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 10:53 AM
To: Codron, Michael; Corey, Tyler
Cc: E -mail Council Website
Subject: Re: PC 10 -28 -15 Agenda Correspondence for Item 1 (Villarreal), (Keisler), & (Salem)
Michael and Tyler
I apologize again for not being able to make it Wed. I actually ended up coming down with laryngitis and could not talk,
so it worked out for the best. That said, I was able to watch afterward and wanted to weigh in on item 3, 1035
Madonna. I have two very significant concerns with what transpired Wed and the very accommodating direction the
City is taking on this project.
First, while it's noble that City and the developer /consultant want to move forward with an EIR, the commission nor the
public has not had a chance to comment on the alternatives in the plan, and the plan has never been presented to
commission in its entirety. It seems odd that commission would be scoping this without ever having the plan presented
to us, being formally presented a copy, or being able to comment on it.
Second, and relating to this, I have concerns about the substance and content of the discussion / evaluation to be
completed. There was only limited discussion of multi - modal /walkable /bikable design and thinking beyond tradition
housing design (low density single family and apartment -like multi - family) in this location. It seems like we should be
having a more robust discussion about these type of issues and the requirements that the City will hold this area to in
order to meet LUCE goals (e.g. things like reduced parking standards, less wide street widths, increased housing density
thresholds, diversified unit mix and design, diversified, trip- degenerating land uses, zero - energy / water - efficient homes,
etc.). These are things that should and likely will be reflected in the updated zoning code, but that may be hard to
operationalize at this point without very thoughtful work.
Given these factors, I hope that we can take a step back and get a bit more information before proceeding. If we don't
and choose a status quo development, it's likely that the fears of many of the public (more traffic, etc.) will be realized.
Billy
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:39 PM, William Riggs - wrote:
> Hi. I have a work - relayed issue that has come up and will not be able
> to attend.
> William Riggs
> PhD, AICP, LEED AP
> 510.205.5944
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Thomas, Laurie <Ithomas slocity.ore> wrote:
• Attached is more agenda correspondence for the October 28th Planning
• Commission meeting.
> Laurie Thomas
> Administrative Assistant III
> <image001.png>
> Community Development
> 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3218 E Ithomas@slocity.org
> T 805.781.7578 slocity.org
> <10 -28 -2015 PC Agenda Correspondence - Item 1 (Villarreal).pdf>
> <10 -28 -2015 PC Agenda Correspondence - Item 1 (Keisler).pdf>
> <10 -28 -2015 PC Agenda Correspondence - Item 1(Salem).pdf>
Billy Riggs
PhD, AICP, LEED AP