HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2017 Item 1, Rowley (2)RECEIVED
COUNCIL MEETING: c1' 12 "1APR 12 2017
ITEM NO.:
From: RQN of SLO [
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:36 AM
To: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@siocitv.ore>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.or>; Christianson, Carlyn
<cchristianson@slocitv.o>; Pease, Andy <anease@slocitv.org>; Gomez, Aaron <aeomez@slocity.or >; Advisory Bodies
<a dviso rybod ies @ sloc ity.o rg>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.Ur1,>; Goodwin, Heather <hgoodwin@slocitv.org>
Subject: Item 1, Study Session - Zoning Regulations Update
Please distribute to Planning Commissioners.
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
April 12, 2017
SUBJECT: Item 1, Study Session —Zoning Regulations Update
Dear Mayor Harmon, Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods appreciates the opportunity to provide our comments
regarding the following items included in the scope of work.
The staff report, page 1, states that the Zoning Regulations are the key tool to achieve land use
policy objectives, and to support circulation objectives for mode shift by implementing standards
related to parking management, transit, bicycling, and pedestrian accommodation. In other words,
the Land Use and Circulation Elements, part of the City's General Plan "bible," give us the accepted
policies and programs and the Zoning Regulations implement those policies and programs.
Implementation policies for the Land Use Element are contained in Section 12. The introduction
states: "Implementation refers to all the City's actions to carry out the general plan. Besides the
programs described in previous sections, the City uses the following means of implementing the
Land Use Element. The City's actions taken pursuant to the following shall be consistent with the
General Plan." The first of the ten "means," paragraph 12.1, is the Zoning Regulations. Thus, the
Zoning Regulations must be consistent with the adopted Land Use Element.
Scope of Work.
- Several meetings have been held that cover the scope of work, to include the process to be
followed. One factor, covered in these meetings, that is not mentioned in the report is the use of
legislative drafts. Since both the format and the content of the Zoning Regulations will be changed,
it is important, as well as highly desirable, that the use of legislative drafts be emphasized both for
use by decision makers and by the public in general.
- Additionally, producing the content changes in phases was discussed. However, per the diagram
on page 11, the draft will only be provided in sections for staff review and discussion. Decision
makers and the public will be presented with the entire document to review. Since multiple
changes to both the text and the tables are anticipated in this 316 -page document, having it, also,
reviewed in sections by decision makers and the public appears to be a requirement if the new
document is to be understood.
LUCE Implementation.
- Program 2.11.1, Consider development standards to accommodate student housing preferences.
How will this complement ongoing talks with Cal Poly about their responsibility to build the needed
on -campus housing? Shouldn't development standards accommodate more than this select group?
- Program 2.13, Consider new regulations to address neighborhood compatibility for infill
development.
This LUE residential conservation and development program reads in full (Staff Report, page 7):
2.13. Neighborhood Compatibility The City will consider new regulations, for Low -Density and
Medium -Density Residential areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2)
replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing
facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings. The City will periodically update
Community Design Guidelines for larger homes, infill housing and accessory single -story buildings.
Previously this item was pulled by staff to receive separate, specific attention. Marcus Carloni did a
significant amount of work both when he was the lead planner on the item and after having been
selected for a position in Administration, to include holding two public workshops. Unfortunately,
the previous council did not follow up to ensure that completion of this task was given the priority
they had intended. We firmly believe that with minimal additional staff work, this item can be
finalized by staff prior to the March 2018 completion date for the Zoning Regulations update.
- Program 2.15, Evaluate alternatives to the current maximum number of dwellings units and height,
parking, and setback standards, to regulate residential building intensity.
This LUE residential conservation and development program reads in full (Staff Report, page 7):
2.15. Residential Densities The City will evaluate alternatives to the current maximum number of
dwelling units per acre (based on bedroom count) and height, parking, and setback standards, to
regulate residential building intensity, and bulk and mass. Floor area limits will be considered.
The abbreviated definition shown on page 4 of the staff report seems to imply that the number of
dwelling units and height should be increased while parking and setback standards should be
reduced. However, when read in full it seems to imply that alternatives should be evaluated
depending on the circumstances encountered in a particular neighborhood.
As an example, there is currently no city-wide parking management type program. Instead we
have a parking spaces management program that provides reduced parking for commercial, office
and residential projects - and has done so for years. This has created the situation we have now
with cars being parked anywhere a space can be found, whether or not that space is available for
use. For example, overflow from adjacent housing into the spaces for the Villa Rosa condominiums
and Sierra Vista Hospital, overflow from small commercial projects to University Square, and the use
of various residential neighborhoods and some commercial properties for "park & ride" purposes (a
car is parked and a bicycle or public transit is used for the rest of the journey).
Alternatives. We request the assessment of parking alternatives include increasing parking space
requirements as well as alternate locations for cars to be stored when not needed for several days.
This, also, applies to the proposal: Update Parking Standards (Table 6).
Other Features - still under the LUCE umbrella.
- Update Parking Standards (Table 6). See Program 2.15 comments, above.
2
- Update Land Use Definitions.
We are concerned that these definitions, long used and understood, will be revised. The alternative
is to add new terms for new definitions; we support that approach.
Focus Questions
- Two workshops (same format) that focus on issues may be sufficient public participation for the
beginning of the update process. However, holding only two workshops (same format) near the
end of the process is decidedly insufficient to engage the public and expect to receive informed
public comment since the information is unfamiliar/complex and the document is long. The draft
needs to be separated into sections that are presented at different times, with sufficient lead time
provided to allow the public to adequately review and understand the proposed changes as well as
to be able to address those changes. More workshops are needed to review the draft.
- This council on various occasions has expressed appreciation for community involvement and
encouraged more people to share their thoughts and recommendations about the various items on
an agenda. Combining architectural design with use permit approval will have the opposite effect.
For the average resident, Design Guidelines, LUE guidance, hillside standards, "S" overlays, etc., are
unfamiliar and must be studied each time. The same is true for the various types of use permits.
Requiring our residents to digest an even greater variety of unfamiliar policies and procedures in a
week or less, put it on paper and/or condense it into 3 minutes will, we believe, result in less public
engagement. If this is not what you want to happen, we recommend a "no" on this question.
Alternative. If, despite our recommendation, Council desires to combine architectural design and
use permit approval, we suggest it be done as a one-year pilot program with a sunset date in order
to identify any unintended consequences. If no problems surface, an ordinance to make the change
permanent can be enacted.
Other Items for Consideration.
- Better protection for single-family homes adjacent to high density (R-3/4) and tall mixed-use
projects is needed. For example, the Zoning Regulations provide more protection from mechanical,
vehicle and trash collection noise for residents of the project than for residents next to or near the
project. These are intermittent noises so there is no viable mitigation since in order for a violation
to occur, a police officer must be present to hear the noise.
- Affordable -by -design means smaller and, thus, less expensive. It seems inappropriate to consider
an affordable -by -design unit in the same way as an affordable unit, which is similar in size to the
other units, but offered at a reduced rate. Since the city wants more workforce housing, suggest
that consideration be given to offering fewer incentives for affordable -by -design units than are
available for affordable units.
- Roof decks are not allowed by our (permissive) regulations, although some have been approved.
Because residents in several neighborhoods have been annoyed by the noise from alcohol -fueled
3
gatherings on rooftops, they are understandably anti -roof deck. Request consideration to formally
disallowing roof decks in or near residential neighborhoods. Downtown establishments may want
to include roof decks in their developments; if so, request extensive coordination and cooperation
with downtown residential neighborhoods well before a decision is to be made.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
4