HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-2016 Item 7, FowlerCOUNCIL MEETING: [ O b -Al, ][ to
1TI:N1 NO.: . — -._-.
Christian, Kevin
From: Gallagher, Carrie RECFIIIED
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:50 AM
To: Christian, Kevin OCT 05 2016
Subject: FW: Downtown Concept Plan Update
SLO My CLERK
Kevin,
This came in last night, I'm thinking this would be considered agenda correspondence.
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Codron, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:25 AM
To: John Fowler <JohnF@pshhc.org>
Cc: Gallagher, Carrie <CGallagher@slocity.org>; Fowler, Xzandrea <XFowler@slocity.org>; Gershow, Rebecca
<RGershow@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Downtown Concept Plan Update
Thanks, John. I'm passing this on to make sure it is included in the record. Safe travels. -Michael
-----Original Message -----
From: John Fowler [mailto:JohnF@pshhc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 4:18 AM
To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>
Subject: Downtown Concept Plan Update
As I am in Washington DC this week and will miss the Joint City Council/Planning Commission study session, I wanted to
offer a few written thoughts and comments via email,
Of course thank you to the Creative Vision Team, staff and consultants for the amazing amount of time, effort and
expertise that has gone into the report. I am impressed with the Concept so far and how it will help guide our future
development and public acquisition efforts for the next 25 years.
My own thoughts and concerns are ( in no random order as I'm actually in flight to DC at the moment)
1. 1 am extremely interested and maybe concerned to hear about the outcome or thoughts from the CVT on the
Fremont Theater/County Government Plaza and hope something can happen there.
2. As an accountant I wonder about the costs for these changes and acquisitions and who will bare them and if there will
be any priority given to when some changes should happen in the report ? Of course new development will be assumed
to pay their fair share but clearly City funding will be required for others, so how will those costs be estimated and
budgeted to ensure these changes actually happen in 25 years.
3. There some talk in the report about the type of businesses we want to have downtown to compliment our vision, but
more bars doesn't seem to be the answer as now many families leave the downtown and students seem to be more
prevalent as the evening wears on, so desired commercial uses seems important to include in the report. I agree with
those who said we need commercial for residential needs downtown for those who reside there.
4. Our population is aging and,so senior needs and uses are important, places easily accessible and inviting for seniors to
hang out downtown to people., watch, socialize and to get out of their likely small homes/apt to walk and exercise
downtown. Places where they feel a apart of Downtown, and included with younger folks.
5. Of course affordable housing needs to be a part of the downtown plan, as right now new residential housing
downtown is out of the reach of everyone but the very well off and that's not ok.
6. This brings up my final point and that is the two schools of thought on density and height, one keeping status quo and
one adding height where appropriate, the report doesn't go far enough at this point to take advantage of the areas
where height could be designated. Yes there are several places where we are adding 2-4 stories but some areas in the
downtown could be pushed higher and should be to not only achieve more residential units but provide less expensive
units and even low income affordable units.
So, good luck Tuesday night and again the plan efforts so far are great and I look forward to hearing more as it
progresses.
John Fowler
Planning Commissioner
Sent from my Wad