HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/2018 Item 1, Smith
Tonikian, Victoria
From:carolyn smith <cjsmith_107@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Planning Commission - June 27, 2018 - Zoning Regulation Update
Chair Fowler and Commissioners:
I have many concerns about the Zoning Update. Below are a few of my major concerns:
1. Loss of scenic view sheds due to increased building heights: One of the most desirable and
unique characteristics of SLO is our protected hillsides. Previous city leaders and residents have
worked very hard to preserve them from development threatening to destroy those scenic views and
scenic corridors/highways. This has afforded residents and visitors the opportunity to enjoy the
beautiful views of our hills from just about any area of the city. What's sad to see here is that the
zoning update allows for the destruction of these views by allowing taller buildings (primarily hotels
and large mixed use rentals), thereby preserving the view for visitors and short term residents, rather
than for EVERYONE, visitors and residents alike. This will forever change a very desirable special
feature for which our city has been known and for which many move here. With the proposed zoning
changes, those years of hard preservation work will be wiped out.
2. Further parking reductions in projects: We already have a parking shortage in SLO. Reducing
parking in projects only creates an overflow parking problem to nearby streets, oftentimes in
nearbyneighborhoods. It creates bumper to bumper parking and increased traffic on streets not
sufficient to handle the increased need. While it may be a goal of this city to force residents out of
their cars onto bikes, it seems to be having the opposite effect. Many are very angry and resentful
that the city continually lectures and chastises residents for driving vehicles and not bikes. In fact,
many neighborhoods are complaining that they have never had a parking problem before but are now
experiencing a problem since new projects with insufficient parking are causing an overflow into their
neighborhoods. So allowing large projects to be built with insufficient parking as a mechanism to force
their residents out of car use is not working. It only fosters anger, frustration and creates new
problems, destroying residents' quality of life. Therefore, there should be no further parking reductions
than what is already being allowed, which many think is already too much.
3. High Occupancy Permit Ordinance: The City should not eliminate this ordinance until thorough
research has been completed to be certain of its legality. If it is eliminated, this update process must
find another way to keep our neighborhoods from being further destroyed by allowing 10-12 or more
young adults to occupy a single-family residential unit. This will place the last nail in the coffin on the
peace and safety of our neighborhoods and will cause more residents to move. Nearly everyday, I
hear of another long-term, and even some shorter term residents, who are moving because they just
can't live with the noise, traffic, parking, vandalism, threats, and other problems occurring in their
neighborhood from too many young adults living in a home. If this permit process is removed without
replacing it with another one that can provide some protections to a neighborhood, then I'm certain,
as Cal Poly increases its enrollment each year (just as they have again this coming fall), large
sections of our city will become another Isla Vista—forcing families out. Certainly a way can be found
to avoid this travesty.
1
4. Elimination of public input: I'm very concerned that in an effort to “streamline” the planning
process, decision-making on many projects will be bypassing public input. One staff member should
not have the unfettered power to make the determination if a project will have significant impacts on
an adjacent area/neighborhood. That determination should be made by those most affected by it.
There have been instances when Staff has judged a project as “insignificant” but to a nearby
residential neighborhood, it is significant with severe and disturbing impacts. The public should have
the ability to not only have full knowledge of a project being proposed adjacent to their homes, but
they should have the ability to have early and meaningful public input through an advisory body
meeting and/or an appeal to council. This proposed change will thwart our city's democratic process.
Thank you for your attention and service.
Carolyn Smith
SLO City Resident
2