HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 2 (Schmidt 2)Lomeli, Monique
Subject:
Planning Commission
Meeting: PC 08 - I D I
From: Richard Schmidt Item. 2
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 12:21 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisor bodies siocit .or >
Subject: Planning Commission
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUG Q 9 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: Zoning Study Session — General Comments
Dear Planning Commissioners:
This is a complicated proposal, full of meaty substance, but I'd like to confine my general comments
to a limited number of areas.
1. First, this work should be done in-house, not by a hired consultant. Why do we have a staff of
planners if not to do this sort of work? They are the most familiar with our city and its needs. They are
most in contact with the people who live, work and do business here. They should be the ones to
carry out this work, even if doing so requires hiring temps to take on some of the routine while trained
staff do this important planning. (Residents remember well the fiasco of the LUCE, run by a
consultant who had no interest at all in listening to or protecting the welfare of residents. This is not
good government. It has left a snail trail of distrust the city cannot easily clean up.)
2. Second, it is imperative that all revisions be done via legislative draft, which clearly shows what's
being edited, what's being deleted, what's being added to the existing documents. This is open,
honest government. Several times in the past the city has proceeded without a legislative draft, has
sneakily made changes not in the best interests of residents, and has wrought havoc and distrust in
the process. As a matter of public trust, a legislative draft is the way to go.
3. Third, the process proposes the use of "stakeholder groups." The stakeholder technique is
undemocratic and hands over the process to those chosen by the city rather than opening it up to
everyone. (When I served on the Commission, we began our general plan update with neighborhood
meetings, with pads of newsprint and markers given to the participants to tell us what they wanted —
no conferring with pre -selected stakeholders, no dog and pony shows telling people what we were
doing to them.) The city's stakeholder process is always designed to hand power to the business
elite, and shuts out residents and environmentalists. I note, for example, that only one resident group
is listed as a proposed stakeholder (RQN), and while they represent many resident interests, they
don't represent all, nor should they be placed in a position where that's expected of them. I'd note
also that not a single environmental stakeholder is on the list — this is typical of the city's pro-business
bias despite the fact most residents indicate in poll after poll the strong value they place on protecting
the environment. If you actually want to know how residents feel about zoning changes, if you want to
get their insights, you need to do better than this.
4. Finally, a few words about parking requirements. The city has been reducing parking
requirements for multi -family residences and businesses — in fact, you have a misguided proposal for
that on this same agenda. This is all apparently based on some modal shift nonsense that's never
going to happen. (The Commission on which I served optimistically set the city's first modal shift goal
— a single digit one — and it's still not been achieved 25 years later!) People are going to continue to
get around by personal motor vehicle (the only question is about fuel source), and the bigger you
make the city, the more that is going to become true. You must be realistic about the numbers of cars
we are going to have; it is easier to convert car space to other uses should some modal shift miracle
actually happen than to create car space when the miracle doesn't happen. Let me give you an
example of how this absurdity plays out. In our neighborhood, a developer proposes a dormitory for
160 students, almost every one of whom will have a car, yet the city requires only 63 spaces
INCLUDING GUEST SPOTS. There is no on -street parking available for the 100 excess vehicles.
These kids' cars will be spread out through many nearby neighborhoods. Is that the sort of city you
want to create? It strikes me this is slum planning, not city planning. Please revamp the city's parking
requirements to require MORE, not less, parking for multi -family housing and businesses.
Thank you for considering these thoughts.
Richard Schmidt