Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/2018 Item 1, Lopes From:James Lopes < To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Davidson, Doug; Bell, Kyle; Russ Brown Subject:Letter Re: Item 1 - Zoning Regulations Update - June 27, 2018 Attachments:Letter2_PC_6-25-18_ZoningRegsHrg_Lopes.doc Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo Dear Chairperson Fowler and Commissioners: I have submitted the attached letter on behalf of Save Our Downtown and myself, with corresponding references. Quite a few topics remain unanswered or unaddressed which we are bringing to your attention. And, we are repeating our requests for major discussion and revisions to retain orderly planning and review processes. Thank you for the great amount of time and effort which you dedicate to your positions. Sincerely, James Lopes 1 1 912 Bluebell Way  San Luis Obispo, California 93401  June 24, 2018 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo, California RE: Zoning Regulations Update – Hearing on June 27, 2018 Dear Chairperson Fowler and Commissioners: I am writing as a representative of Save Our Downtown and as an individual. I hope that you have read in detail the letter from Allan Cooper, for Save Our Downtown, I support his comments. I have comments about the following items: 1. Public Input (Save Our Downtown comments) Mr. Davidson wrote, “Although, not a Zoning Regulations item, the Commission also directed that “story poles” be installed on site as a condition of approval where building height could impact surrounding properties (for example, when a height exception is requested.)” The request of Save Our Downtown member Russ Brown was indeed a Zoning Regulations item; it just did not come from staff. The response by staff makes no sense. The time for story poles is at the time of use permit application, not as a condition of approval after the use permit. Please ask that staff revise their response and write a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance in all zones, that proposed buildings over three stories or 35 feet shall have the roof lines outlined accurately by story poles, to depict the proposed height(s) before application completion and acceptance. The usual requirements for sound construction and ongoing maintenance of the story poles should be included. The visual depiction of proposed heights of residential structures is also essential – 22 Chorro is the current example. 2. R-1 Development Standards (My own comments) The scale of residential structures should be required to adjust to the shapes of neighboring and nearby buildings. In fact, the Community Design Guidelines speak to this need. Several design standards can be sourced to provide a meaningful set of regulations for “fitting” new residences with their neighbors, without addressing style. It is very important to include the whole structure, including a garage, in this standard. The floor-area ratio should be less than a 0.40. The volume of a residence should recede away from the property lines. The staff recommendation for 14 feet on upper floors makes sense and is a start to meaningful design standards. 2 3. Upper Monterey Overlay Zone (Save Our Downtown comments) Members of Save Our Downtown have warned that simply extending the Downtown height limit to this area will have premature and adverse consequences on the small scale of the area. We have requested that the Downtown C-D zone height limits be lowered, and we were ignored and told that they are not within the scope of this update. Instead, staff has proposed extending height increases within a potential and unstudied Upper Monterey area, which is also proposed for an “Area Plan.” This idea is premature and unstudied in the Initial Study.  The current height limit is 45 feet, which enables four-story buildings. There is no known short-term (five years) need to go taller in this area. Doing so could very well attract proposals for seven-story hotels and dorm housing similar to that which was proposed earlier on the Shell station site.  Parking within the Upper Monterey area is very unsettled; only a garage location proposed by the Firestone/Tomkins developers has been discussed. The County property on Monterey Street has not been seriously considered. It is premature to increase the height limit and invite large-scale development, without having a garage location at least on-line to accommodate parking in-lieu fees. The Marsh Street garage is too far away to qualify to receive in-lieu fees.  This proposal will pre-determine the outcome of the pending Upper Monterey Area Plan. Does staff know what and who might benefit from this early allowance? What else is one to deduce from this proposal? Lastly, the overlay zone makes less sense than just extending the Downtown C-D zone to the area. It makes no sense to create a special area zone where your Commission must decide if a project will be “consistent with the expectations for downtown core development.” Do any of you know what those expectations are? How would the entire Commission know? Again, what is staff’s agenda to grant height increases based on unfettered speculation? a. Please deny this proposal, especially in light of the negative impacts of tall buildings versus low-rise ones, which are listed in Allan Cooper’s letter. Save Our Downtown opposes this change unless and until the height limit in the Downtown Historic District is lowered below the current 50 feet, to 35 feet or three story buildings. If your commission wishes to implement that change, an increase in the C- R zone to 50 feet, with a bonus to only 60 feet would be acceptable. No extension of downtown zoning would be necessary. b. If you wish to proceed with the proposal, please direct that the Initial Study include a digital model of the current 45-foot limit compared to the proposed 50 – 60 – 75 foot limits in downtown – as proposed by Keith Gurnee. Save Our Downtown supports the use of a software program which can also address the current building heights within these limits. The model should be shown to the public and your commission before you make your recommendation to the City Council on the proposal and the Initial Study. It should be melded with a visualization software to show 3 the resulting loss of scenic views. A modeling software is available from Gridics LLC, a Miami-based software company which offers a 3D Development Analysis Platform called ZONAR. 4. 17.102.020 – Discretionary Actions and Permits - 3. Director’s Action on Exceptions. (p. 6-1) (My own comments) Authority to grant exceptions to standards and policies should only be through a Variance, which should be a Planning Commission decision, not a staff decision. The City staff over the years have promoted and compiled exceptions for almost every regulation (an unusual distinction among California cities), and they are now proposed to be granted through an administrative action, without a public hearing. California planning law is very clear about the Variance, that is, a decision on an “exception” should be based on hardship – that the developer cannot perform the zoning allowance due to physical limitations on his/her property. The law, I think, explicitly warns of refraining from using exceptions as a way to allow what other property owners within the same zone are not allowed to do. At this time, it is your Commission’s prerogative and perhaps responsibility to make a recommendation to revise the regulations to replace any reference to an “exception” with a “Variance.” 5. 17.106.040 – Recommendations from Advisory Bodies (p. 6-15) (Save Our Downtown comments) This proposal will allow the Director to have unfettered discretion to ignore, revise or replace a recommendation by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC makes its decisions after a noticed public hearing which I assume will be the continued practice. The public and ARC as well as staff invest significant resources into the ARC decision. a. How is it that the Director may just put an ARC decision aside and write his/her own recommendation? What is the motivation of the staff in this proposal? Is this a power grab? b. If the public disagrees with the ARC recommendation, will people have to appeal it to City Council? How then does the Director get to change the decision? c. Lastly, can the Planning Commission also act as an “ARC” by making design changes at the Conditional Use Permit hearing? If so, should the public even show up at the ARC hearing, or should the Director just be contacted and lobbied? Please deny this proposal and allow the Director (staff) to write an Alternative Recommendation for the design, as has been the ongoing practice. 6. 17.108.020 – Applicability - 4. C-D Zone Residential Parking (Save Our Downtown comments) This section makes an indeterminate statement: “A reduction in parking spaces based on a project-specific parking study prepared per City specifications.” Please ask staff to write the criteria for approval; would it be no net loss in on- street and other public parking spaces? Just doing a parking study without guidance is wasteful and bad planning. 4 7. 17.108.030 – Application Filing, Processing, and Review – B.3 – Application Review (Save Our Downtown comments) As a former community planner, I am uncomfortable with the allowance for the Director (staff) to set Conditions of Approval with a minor development review, which is not a discretionary decision (no public notice or hearing). My understanding is that Conditions of Approval may only be set after a public hearing. I think the customary practice is that the Director may exercise discretion only where or when the Zoning Ordinance states so, and to what degree. Please ask staff to revise the proposal to allow a decision without the setting of Conditions of Approval. The remedy is that the Director (staff) may not approve an application until he/she can make the required findings. Project changes to do so can be required during the review. 8. Chapter 17.109: Director’s Hearing (6-20) (My own comments) The Director’s decision under California law is a discretionary use permit. This chapter is repetitive with the new Minor Use Permit section. It makes no sense to add this level of review, which is the same as the Minor Use Permit (now the Administrative Use Permit). Please move the Minor Use Permit section to this chapter, to be separate from the Conditional Use Permit section, and re-title the next chapter as the Conditional Use Permit. Does the staff have any compelling reason why this should be a distinct chapter? Changes to Table 6.1 would be necessary also. 9. 17.110.070 – Required Findings (p. 6-24) (My own comments) The proposed findings are too narrow and not in the public’s interest for “well neighborhoods,” especially in regard to the general welfare. The “welfare” class of police power is broad and inclusive of all manner of health and livability. The general welfare should be more explicitly represented in the finding. The following findings are from the County Land Use Ordinance as an example, because they state that a proposed use will not be detrimental (a lower and different threshold than a “hazard” as stated by staff) to the welfare of specific people in the neighborhood, and they speak to traffic specifically. Please have staff add these findings and replace any repetitive ones: a. The establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use; and b. That the proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; and c. That the proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved with the project. 10. Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Save Our Downtown comments) The initial study is flawed in its discussion and conclusions. Please refer to Allan Cooper’s letter of June 24, 2018 for detailed discussion. 5 a. Under “1. Aesthetics” it is apparent that no serious attempt was made to determine the visual effects of development under the proposed height limits, upon the views of scenic resources. Save Our Downtown supports the proposal by Keith Gurnee to halt the process and hire a firm to prepare a digital model of the downtown and environs, such as Upper Monterey Street. And, a digital visual analysis of the coverage of views from the pedestrian level from public places and streets. The potential impacts on views will decidedly be significant – the staff report is incorrect. b. The topic “5. Cultural Resources” did not analyze the potential destruction and replacement of historic buildings within the Downtown, particularly by taller projects allowed to build to 50, 60 or 75 feet. The likely construction methods for these projects should be reviewed to determine whether the existing masonry and wood structures would be removed, including the facades. And, would the recently renovated buildings for earthquake retrofits also have to be rebuilt. The potential loss of these historic structures should be studied and brought to light before the Zoning Regulations are adopted to enable their destruction. c. Under “7. Greenhouse Emissions” it is apparent that the City is willing to tout the option of net-zero energy construction and the option of a Transportation Demand Management program, both as incentives for exceeding the height limit. These “advances” should be made requirements outside the list of “incentives” for increasing building heights. It also is disingenuous for staff to tout the requirement for parking lot tree canopies, when the staff have approved Palm trees within entire parking lots! And this was done even though the Tree Committee and City Arborist insist that Palm trees are not eligible street trees, by their nature as grasses with very little canopy. Thank you for your time and attention in considering my comments for Save Our Downtown and myself. Hopefully all of them have your agreement and support. As you can guess, I ask that you have the hearing schedule continued longer to allow staff time to make the necessary changes with reporting back to you and the public. For the aid of us all, would you ask that further changes be made in “legislative editing” so that we may understand where they are? Sincerely, James Lopes