Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Regulations Update (Save Our Downtown) - received 03-20-2017Under 17.42.020.C Maximum height: 50 feet. We are asking the City to consider modifying the following language: “The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve building heights up to 60 feet if the ARC determines that the project includes at least two four objectives from the following sections (lettered a. through g.), with no two being from the same lettered section. 
 The Planning Commission may approve a use permit allowing maximum building height of 75 feet upon determining that at least two four of the following policy objectives (with no two being from the same lettered section) are met, and at least one Affordable and Workforce Housing Objective must be chosen.” Our argument is that it is far too easy for the developer to include two of the following: “affordable and workforce housing” or “pedestrian amenities” such as providing at a mid-block location a pedestrian connection or “view access and preservation” such as providing a public viewing deck or “economic vitality” such as providing two levels of retail sales or hospitality or “historic preservation” through preservation of an on-site historically listed property or “open space preservation” or “energy efficiency” by exceeding the Title 24 by a minimum of 30% or “other policy objectives” as set forth in the General Plan, the Downtown Conceptual Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan or other key policy document, to the approval of the Planning Commission. Reduction in overall height and the installation of temporary story poles (a simple vertical pole supported by guy wires simulating the true height of the proposed building) as part of the application requirements for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height would have helped in the case of the proposed San Luis Square and Fremont Square projects. San Luis Square towered over the Jack House and Fremont Square towered over the Fremont Theater, both historical landmarks. Therefore, with regards to requirements for planning applications submitted for new buildings over 40 feet tall, we are urging the following item be added to your list: “Application requirements should also include for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height the temporary installation of a story pole that can be easily viewed by the public.” Specifically with regards to the mixed-use project proposed at 1101 Monterey Street, there was overuse of Planned Development (PD) zoning to justify a Page 75 foot tall building. Our Planned Development standards need to be firmed up and “spot zoning” should be avoided. Under Chapter 17.62 Planned Development 17.62.045 “Decision and Findings”, make the following change: A. Mandatory project features. “The review authority may recommend or approve a rezoning to apply the PD overlay zoning district only for a project that incorporates a minimum of two three of the following four features.” In Chapter 17.42 “Downtown Commercial (C-D) Zone”, under 17.42.020 “Property Development Standards”, C. “Maximum Height”, 3. “Policy Objectives” the third sentence should be changed so that the word “must” (which is not legally enforceable) becomes “shall”. “Regardless of the number of objectives proposed (for buildings taller than 50 feet), the decision making body must shall determine that the overall project is consistent with the General Plan, including goals and policies for view preservation, historical resource preservation, solar access and architectural character, and that the project conforms to the Community Design Guidelines.” In the Land Use Element under Chapter 4 “Downtown” Policy 4.20.4. “Building Height” it states that: “New buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing development, shall respect views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street façade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development.” There needs to be more precision here in specifying the depth of these step backs. For example, a one- or two-foot step back will not achieve the objectives of reducing the perceived height or scale of the building so a minimum step back needs to be established. Over Concentration of Alcohol Outlets Downtown 2.In the case of both Discovery SLO and the Libertine Marketplace there should have been in place a “public convenience and necessity policy” that could have limited the number of alcohol outlets concentrated in these locations. The over-concentration of alcohol outlets downtown breeds crime, places economic hardships on existing retail businesses, is a public health and Page sanitation hazard, presents a livability problem for downtown residents and hotel patrons and reduces economic diversity by displacing existing retail stores and offices. We are therefore urging you to either limit the number of bars and bars with restaurants having more than 10 seats and/or entertainment/dance areas, so that no more than one or two bars/restaurants/clubs are located on any one block or, through the enactment of an “over-concentration law”, prohibit the approval of any more alcohol outlets within the downtown census tract. This can be accomplished by expanding the scope of LUE Implementation Subtask 4.32 “Alcohol Use Permits” to include a work program implementing an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578. Additionally, We are urging you to revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: “alcohol outlet public safety strategies and deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations”... Ordinance 1578 states that “upon receiving a complaint from the public, or the Police Department...of repeated nuisance activities within the premises or in close proximity of the premises...then a public hearing will be scheduled before the Administrative Hearing Officer”. To the best of our knowledge, such an administrative hearing has never taken place. This in spite of the fact that there have been frequent noise complaints for the following establishments: Marston’s Bar & Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthy’s Irish Pub and SLO Brew. This in spite of the fact that sexual assaults (44 this last year) and simple assaults (148 this year) have risen dramatically within the City over the past 3 years and that San Luis Obispo falls in the lowest decile of safe cities in America. The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an over-concentration law. Under "assessing and renewing Downtown, staff included in its action plan the following: "Alcohol Concentration Evaluation and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion time for this was November of 2014. This never happened. Such an over-concentration law could take the form of an “alcohol outlet overlay zone”. This zone (vis-a-vis, the City of San Diego) could prohibit the approval of new alcohol outlets within the downtown census tract if such a proposed use is: a.Within a census tract, or within 600 feet of a census tract, where the general crime rate exceeds the citywide average general crime rate by more than 20 percent; Page b.Within a census tract, or within 600 feet of a census tract, where the ratio of alcohol beverage outlets exceeds the standards established by California Business and Professional Code section 23958.4; c.Within 600 feet of a public or private accredited school, a public park, a playground or recreational area, a church, a hospital, or a welfare district office; and d.Within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property. The City promised that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Committee would address the long range management of alcohol outlets in the Downtown. This would involve the implementation of LUE Subtask 4.29: “Coordination of Late Night Environment” which would enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near Downtown is safe and pleasant. This never happened. Adherence to the Community Design Guidelines and the Downtown Concept Plan 3.The Monterey Place Mixed-Use project did not adhere to the following “Conceptual Physical Plan For The City’s Center” recommendation: “Open up the creeks more to visual and physical access.” In the case of the Olive Mixed-Use project, the 1135 Santa Rosa Mixed-Use project, the South Town 18 project and the Lofts @ Nipomo project there should have been stricter compliance with the Community Design Guidelines. Therefore, we are urging you to incorporate the Downtown Concept Plan and Community Design Guidelines into the zoning regulations as design standards, similar to the County’s ordinance (see attachment: the SLO County “Model to Codify SLO Community Design Guidelines as Zoning Standards”). We are also urging you to initiate an illustrated Urban Design section in the Zoning Regulations, to address how the visual character or setting should be incorporated and reflected in new development projects, and how neighborhood and community commercial areas should be laid out in site planning. This does not have to be a “form based code,” which may be too limiting or diagrammatic. Chain Stores Downtown 4.It is well documented that national chains do not generate the sustainable income and revenues locally owned businesses do, especially in smaller cities. This is known as the multiplier effect. National chains are not what Page sustain a self-sustaining business environment. While they add to the overall tax base, the money earned by these businesses do not remain in the community. Therefore we are urging you to initiate an ordinance similar to the one San Francisco has that would require a conditional use authorization application for chain stores or “formula retail uses”. Such an ordinance could, like San Francisco’s Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD), North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and Chinatown Visitor Retail District, prohibit any additional “formula retail uses” in SLO’s downtown core. In addition, the City should begin an economic development strategy to protect and encourage small-scale, locally-owned businesses. More local stores are good for tourism and good for the economy . Housing Capacity Analysis For All Commercial Districts 5.Initiate a General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendment to determine the appropriate housing density and height in downtown, given a reduced height limit and well-practiced urban design principles. A city-wide inventory and analysis of housing capacity should be done of the commercial districts (including downtown and shopping centers), as well as residential districts, to determine the “right locations and fit” for additional housing stock for low to moderate incomes. Changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would come from this analysis, to highlight where limitations to increased housing density are beneficial, and where added housing densities will be more appropriate. As regarding staff’s suggestion for a “White Paper” on “flexible density downtown”: We wish to remind the City that, per the Downtown Association’s August 10, 2016 panel discussion on a film about “urban life”, Christine Theodoropoulos, AIA, PE, Dean of Cal Poly’s College of Architecture and Environmental Design stated that we “do not have to increase height in order to increase density”. Tree Preservation & Role of the Tree Committee 6.Because of recent questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 54 old growth trees at 71 Palomar, we have uncovered the need for more clarity on the protocols regarding evaluation of trees, tree habitat and evaluation of “cultural landscapes”. Page We are therefore urging you to reinstate the omitted LUE Implementation Subtask 9.10 “Urban Forest” which would address the need for an update to the master tree plan. But, more importantly, we are also recommending a re-examination of Ordinance No. 1544. This re-examination could address the following policies: a.Reordering the sequence of the review process when a Tree Committee denial could over-ride previous administrative or advisory body approvals. b.The Tree Committee’s right to initiate a discussion on any issue. c.The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the final outcome. Also, discussion could center on how these arborist consultants are selected. d.The City Arborist’s unilateral role as defined under Ordinance Number No. 1544, 12.24.090 “Tree Removal” D. “Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation” which excludes advice and consent from the Tree Committee except in the case where the Arborist cannot authorize the tree removal. e.Under Ordinance Number No. 1544, 12.24.090 “Tree Removal” I. “Approval Conditions” the following changes should be made: “In approving an application for tree removal, the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may shall require planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained.” f.The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely dependent on the public to identify trees suitable for this program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be more proactive in this regard? g.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how trees maintain biodiversity, i.e., the role certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting grounds and pollination pastures for a wide range of insects and animals? h.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address the role trees play in sequestering greenhouse gases? By the way, some species do this better than others. Page i.Can’t it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how various species of trees are not only more drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water than newly planted specimens? j.Clarification is needed on existing, ambiguous and conflicting policies. For example look at the following link “San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information Packet” available online (see: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument id=3373). This information packet states the following: “The Tree Committee proposes the following plan to formalize this Heritage Tree Program, so that citizens and groups may participate in this community program:
 i. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services
 ii. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
 iii. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
 iv. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council – adopt resolution – designation as Heritage Tree” 
 What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and when does it become effective? It is also not clear who comprises the “Urban Forest Services staff”? 
 Moreover a “Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo Information Packet and Form” contains the following verbiage: “There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
 i. Public trees – parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc. 
 ii. Voluntary cooperation – privately owned trees.
 iii. Required cooperation – tree preservation in new developments, etc. 
 However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term “required cooperation” for new developments. Does this “required cooperation” override the owner’s consent? Neighborhood Wellness 7.We understand that LUE Implementation Subtask 2.14: “Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans” is ongoing. This subtask would help devise Page strategies to stabilize the rental/owner ratio, to maintain neighborhood character, safety, and stability. We are in support of the following: LUE Implementation Subtask 2.11.2. Multifamily Open-Space and Storage Standards. This is “deemed desirable” as these amenities will then address the needs of our workforce as opposed to becoming de facto “student housing”. LUE Implementation Subtask 2.12 Downtown Residential Development LUE Implementation Subtask 2.13 & the associated “white paper” on “edge conditions in the City and neighborhood compatibility”. LUE Implementation Subtask 3.10 Noise Control with the addition that other noise attenuation measures be explored such as requiring balconies or rooftop decks to be enclosed with sound attenuating material (such as glass or plexiglas). However Save Our Downtown would like the City to take a more proactive stance on traffic congestion, particularly in existing neighborhoods. The Housing Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law recommends denial of housing projects that contribute to traffic congestion. We are recommending the following addition be made to the Housing Element: “If ‘exceptions to development standards’ or ‘easing of parking standards and building setbacks’ result in traffic congestion using objective and quantifiable criteria then the project can be modified or denied.” Moreover, we are urging the City to place Special Consideration (S) overlay zones over Commercial Tourist (C-T) and Downtown Commercial (C-D) zones contiguous to residential neighborhoods, specifically Dana Street and Lincoln Street. There is a need for more City parks, especially in the North Broad Street Neighborhood. The Parks and Recreation Commission has historically focused on recreation at the expense of the parks. We urge the Parks and Recreation Commission to focus on identifying the location of, and funding for, a park in the North Broad Street Neighborhood. Page Administration of the Zoning Regulations 8.With regards to staff’s suggested revisions to the “Table of Contents”: Under Article 1 - “Purpose and Applicability of the Zoning Regulations”, the following should be addressed: The City could promote a more diligent administration of the Zoning Regulations, by setting forth a “direction of duty,” with the following text recommendations: Section 17.02.020 Purpose: “The Zoning Regulations express the specific interest and intent of the residents of San Luis Obispo, as represented by their City Council, as the means and methods by which to implement the City General Plan. It is the obligation of City representatives, appointed commissioners, staff and contract employees to promote, interpret and implement these regulations in accordance with the City General Plan.” 17.02.040 Interpretation: “Officials of the City of San Luis Obispo, including, but not limited to staff, commissioners and City Council, shall diligently defend and uphold the Zoning Regulations. Such officials shall obtain and provide useful and expert interpretations and guidance to applicants and the public, which clarify and show how development and subdivision applications can become consistent with these regulations.” Other Key Issues Requiring Discussion 9.With regards to “Key issues requiring discussion with the City staff and community to determine the best approach to implementing policies and programs”: a.“Provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience in the Downtown”. We are urging the City to implement a Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Long- range planner Brian Laveille was supposed to be working on a Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Moreover, we were promised that community charrettes would be organized to further flesh out this plan. b.“Consider transfer of development rights (TDR) approaches to transfer densities from outlying areas to Downtown”. Shouldn’t this be the other way around? Shouldn’t we maintain a predominately 2-3 story high downtown by encouraging a suburban developers to purchase unused air rights above a downtown property? Page c.“Incorporate sustainability standards”. We endorse the formulation of these standards particularly as they would apply to the carbon sequestration achieved through the preservation of existing trees. We encourage the City to formalize site planning standards that would factor in optimal orientation to solar and wind. We advocate on behalf of a light color palette for buildings that would not create heat islands nor cause the need for cooling systems. We also encourage that the city consider the impact of taller buildings on surrounding buildings in terms of solar access. Sincerely, Russell Brown Chair, Save Our Downtown Elizabeth Thyne Vice Chair, Save Our Downtown Allan Cooper Secretary, Save Our Downtown www.saveourdowntownslo.com Page !