Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/2018 Item 1, Krahl June 26, 2018 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo, CA RE: Zoning Regulations Update-Hearing on June 27, 2018 Dear Chairperson Fowler and Commissioners: I am a concerned resident of SLO City of many years, and am currently living in Edna Valley, part of which was annexed for the Avila Ranch Project into the city of SLO. I am a member of Preserve the SLO Life, which works to preserve the rural quality of our town and surroundings, including the scenic reserve, air quality, small town atmosphere, historic architecture in the downtown, and uncluttered landscape. We groups around town who are giving feedback on and at times, pushback against the rapid development(s) being proposed in SLO, City proper, the suburbs, and the recently annexed areas such as San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, etc. We cooperate with Save Our powntown, the Laguna area, etc. One of my greatest concerns is the fact that the impact of these developments if carried out the way they are structured, will impact traffic, air quality and thereby pollution, as we do not see or have not been shown that the infrastructure to handle the increased population in our town will be done in a timely fashion; i.e. before being built out. As such, the current gridlock on all arteries, both N/S traffic on city/county roads, and on 101, N/S that we have been experiencing in the past several years will worsen substantially. As it is already, prior to these build outs, cars are essentially "parked," several times a day both North and South, East and West. San Luis Ranch plans don't show adequate traffic amelioration, with a Prado Road overpass until 2035! Other concerns such as the fact there are almost no affordable housing possibilities offered in any of these projects although they were touted to be a reason to green light the scope early on. Instead "in kind," kind of deals are being made, where monies are given to the City for other purposes and the scope of the "affordable" houses is greatly diminished. But the affordable housing rhetoric remains, as a reason to go forward anyway. Infill, the possibilities of absentee landlords being allowed to build "granny houses/rentals" on small properties in town, will make the parking and traffic worse than it is now. The pressure of increasing the Cal Poly student population is what is increasing the blight of huge dorms now ofF Campus/aka Foothill, and the lack of affordable housing for other residents, as students move off campus driving up rents and the values of houses in what used to be quiet family neighborhoods. Much of the parking atong city streets is going away due to construction, obliterating Garden Street as we once knew it, and the impact of immense hotels with extreme heights and scope are out of keeping with SLO's general look, and tone. Big houses are crowding little lots, and destroying the nature of many treasured neighborhoods downtown. I am concerned about the Upper Monterey Overlay Zone. The staff proposal to allow 75ft buildings in the Downtown, could influence the Monterey area, and shouldn't. The idea that the Director or staff can make exceptions without notices, or hearings smacks of outside influence or financial offerings to the City in-kind from developers, to be able to change the very nature of our town. I have reviewed Mr. Lopes' letter to the Commission and his outline of his letter's addendum. He's had many years experience and he offers cogent points as well as protocols that have long stood the test of time, that are now being ignored or co-opted. Too many projects have been green-lighted by the City, and current staff, or Commissioners. The staff should NOT be allowed to ignore, revise, or replace recommendations by the ARC. Much of what the ARC has done in the past accounts for how much better the town is than it was when I moved here almost 40 years ago. To cast their overview and suggestions aside would be sadly mistaken. I agree that removing the "Green" proposals from the bonuses for the higher buildings is a good idea. Further, a digital model and study of the current 45 foot limit, vs 50-60-75 ft. limits in downtown as proposed by Mr. Gurnee, is a good idea. Using a software program as Lopes suggested so we could see, and feel, what would happen to the scenic resources that used to belong to all our citizens and visitors, that could easily be given away to only those hotel patrons staying on the upper floors who visit SLO, while casting we pedestrians in the shadows of a canyon-like set of crowded corridors. They have referenced Gridics LLC, and their 3D Development Analysis Platform; ZONAR. Let's use the proper standards and policies allowed only by a Variance, by a Planning Commission decision, not just by staff. The exceptions for our regulations that have gone through the City staff over the years, is egregious when compared and contrasted among other California cities. Over riding regulations without a public hearing appears to oppose actual CA planning law in regards to the Variance. I refer to # 5. on Lopes' Summary of his 6/24 letter; Deny staff proposals to allow the Director to ignore, revise or replace ARC recommendations. I have made copies of my opinions available for the Clerk to distribute. My experiences on many occasions when told I would have time, i.e. 3 minutes to express my views as a citizen, have been futile, and oft times brushed aside by the developers, who tell us, their presentations didn't allow time for us to speak, so we can choose not to speak, or to limit our presentations at about 8:45 PM to one minute. That, is not idea of a participatory democracy. I hope you have read this and take our concerns into consideration over those who, with many of the proposed developments will destroy and diminish the very nature of the town and county we love. Sincerely, Dr. Karen J. Krahl, D.C.