HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/10/2018 Item 2, Lopes
From:James Lopes <
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Allan Cooper
Subject:City Council Meeting 4-10-18 Zoning Regulations Update
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo, California
RE: Zoning Regulations Update
Dear Mayor Harmon and Councilmembers:
I hope that you will review whether this Study Session is qualified to have any Council votes (decisions) for policy
guidance. My understanding from many years in public service is that no formal votes may be made in a study
session. Individual comments were all that were permitted, including the Architectural Review Commission, on which I
served for eight years. It would be a troubling sign if upon advice, you proceed to take votes for policy
guidance. Second, it would be doubly troubling since you have not had any advice or recommendations from the
Planning Commission or Architectural Review Commission, just individual comments.
It is our understanding in Save Our Downtown that matters concerning height recommendations will be addressed at a
later study session or public hearing.
Proceeding through the list related directly to Downtown, I have a few comments to add to Allan Cooper, who wrote
extensively on these issues:
2) Encourage flexible density in Downtown
Save Our Downtown encourages more affordable housing within downtown, and this proposal goes in that direction but
weakly. It is one thing to allow unlimited density for units that are smaller than 600 square feet, and another to pack
buildings with very small units without any price controls or any linkage to important mitigating services. Allan Cooper
provides a brilliant example how a large building that would currently be allowed 8+ units, could pack in more than
three times that much on the allowed floors within the height limit of 50 feet. The proposal is kind of a Trojan Horse,
because it will encourage builders to propose buildings to the maximum height limits, in order to maximize the number
of small units (called "Stack and Pack" by Mr. Cooper).
Recommendation: Additional finesse should be made to limit the ratio of smaller units to the available floor area, as
one example. The allowance should also be made if there is a nearby frequent transit service, perhaps serving higher
density areas specifically within 15 minute headways. Parking should be required for each unit, or provided through in
lieu fees. The allowance should be lower, at perhaps 400 square feet; many people may afford units between 400 and
600 square feet. In downtown, services and daily needs shopping are not present. This regulation should be for multi-
family zones outside downtown or within 800 to 1,200 feet from a food/drug shopping center, such as Smart and
Final/Rite Aid at Johnson. It should not apply to downtown, which is a fragile historic district of small buildings, but to
the ring of zones around downtown.
3) Regulation of Rooftop Uses
1
The City has seen proposals for rooftop bars and restaurants, and they were either turned down or reduced in size and
location, to avoid noise and hazards. Rooftop "activities" have also been linked to public access to view the scenic
Morros, as mitigation for eliminating these views by new projects.
Recommendation: Regulations for rooftop uses would be timely. The operation and also the design, location on a roof,
public availability and controls, should all be addressed.
4) Alcohol Outlet Regulations
Save Our Downtown has raised major concerns about the number, density, hours and other features of "alcohol
outlets." We support the inclusion of ordinance regulations which extend beyond the currently used conditions of
approval.
Recommendation: The public should be given a full range of choices, including density, beyond the current practice
with the Downtown SLO association. The regulations should extend the “Public Convenience and Necessity” (PCN)
policy to restaurants with bars, which are de facto bars with loud music outside or heard outside at late hours. I support
Allan Cooper's additional comments and recommendations for better regulations here.
7) Consolidate and streamline the Development Review process
The proposals are either developer-serving, instead of public-serving, or they are staff-serving.
Recommendation: The proposals should not go forward without revising them to enable public comment in timely
fashion on all but the small projects.
Review by the ARC will be incomplete, at the conceptual stage, when more factually based and compliant proposals are
made. Often, guidelines are overlooked or ignored at the early stage, and the ARC should not have to ask for major
redesign to obtain consistency with guidelines. In fact, the ARC members are hard-pressed to make any design direction
anytime in the process as it is now!
The Minor Use Permit process at the County should be examined, because mailed public is given, as statutorily required,
but the public is given time to object, and if no one does, then the project is approved with the proposed conditions of
approval by staff without a public hearing. If any objection is made, then a public hearing is held for public input and
modification or addition of conditions.
To repeat Mr. Cooper's comments: The residents of San Luis Obispo oppose this because they do not
want to be deprived of their prerogative to comment on any projects that come
before the City. Nor do the residents want most final decisions to be made by
the Community Development Director or Administrative Hearing Officer. We
oppose limiting the ARC to conceptual review and barring the Tree Committee
from commenting on tree removals in the public right-of-way. In fact, we
would like to expand the Tree Committee’s purview to include tree removals in
new developments. And we are concerned that the ARC will no longer hear the
Cultural Heritage Committee’s recommendations. With the exception of the
Planning Commission, this will limit the scope of each advisory body. Finally,
this will further result in each advisory body becoming more insulated from
one another.
8) Update the parking regulations...
The goal of achieving 20% of all trips by bicycle is a primarily a Public Works goal: safer and faster, easier bike access to
major destinations. Staff is trying to squeeze people out of their cars (and pickups), and spillover parking will be
2
rampant. Bicyclists own cars! Forcing people to find street parking will just introduce another indicator of our lowered
quality of life. Until parking garages were built, daytime parking became an extreme problem on streets around
downtown. Employee parking garage passes helped reduce this congestion. But, to reduce required parking by easy
exceptions with staff approval, is to threaten neighborhoods, and that should not occur.
Recommendation: Authorize research to return to the PC about ITE parking requirements vs. the City's. Do not give
unbridled authority to staff to reduce parking requirements, or even with platitudinus findings.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
912 Bluebell Way
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Ph. 805-602-1365
3