HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2018 Item 3 - Cooper
Purrington, Teresa
From:Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February
To:Davidson, Doug; Bell, Kyle; Advisory Bodies; CityClerk
Subject:Zoning Regulations Update: Preliminary Review of Article 2 (Zones, Allowable Uses,
and Development and Design Standards), Preliminary Review of Article 4 (Regulations
for Specific Land Uses and Activities) & Draft White Paper on Flexible Densities
Down...
Dear Doug and Kyle -
Would you kindly forward the letter below to the Planning
Commission prior to their Wednesday, February 28, 2018
meeting? Thanks!
- Allan
To: SLO Planning Commission, Doug Davidson & Kyle Bell
Re: Zoning Regulations Update
From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date: February 25, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
Staff and the MIG Consultant Team are to be commended for their effort to move this Zoning Regulation
Update process along as expeditiously as possible. However, we’ve all had a formidable task this week
trying to read through this 100-plus page staff report.
Nonetheless, we would like to comment on the proposed updates you have before you.
First, we wish that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to weigh in on the following
policies: 1) consideration of flexible density downtown; 2) removing barriers to construction of accessory
dwelling units and 3) adequacy of City’s alcohol outlet regulations before Council sets policy on these
issues. Why? Because the Council should not set policy in a vacuum. The Council should first hear from
you.
As for the first consideration, “flexible density downtown”, we wish to remind you that the Housing Element
Program 6.27 does not mandate that you double the residential densities currently allowed in the CN, O
and CD zones. The Program simply requests that you “evaluate” and “consider” increasing these
densities. Staff states: “The City of San Luis Obispo has a pivotal opportunity through its Zoning
Regulations Update to increase the amount of housing in Downtown consistent with its land use policy
objectives.” Save Our Downtown supports removing barriers to construction of accessory dwelling units,
particularly on substandard lots located within the Downtown core, because we know that increased
housing density can be achieved without significantly increasing building heights. However, the MIG
Consultant Team’s “Flexible Densities in Downtown” White Paper is placing too much of a burden on the
C-D zone. By doubling floor area ratios in order to absorb a still undetermined number of housing units
(whether “workforce” or not) we will be risking increasing building heights to unacceptable levels - at least
1
“unacceptable” to the public as determined through Downtown Concept Plan workshops and survey
results.
With regards to incorporating Downtown Development Standards beyond the C-D zone into Upper
Monterey: We support this if this is combined with the following additional caveats: 1) that zoning
densities would necessarily be transferred out of (not to other parts of) the historic downtown core and
into outlying, less historically sensitive, areas such as Upper Monterey; 2) that this expanded C-D zone
be overlaid with a Special Consideration (S) Zone to address potential conflicts with adjoining residential
neighborhoods; and 3) that neither the maximum height nor the maximum FAR be increased in the
historical downtown core.
Finally, we are delighted with some of the changes made to the requirements and findings for height
increase in the C-D Zone. We agree with changing the verbiage from “must” to “shall”, increasing the
number of required community benefits from two to three for buildings up to 60 and 75 feet and requiring
that any additional floors be utilized solely for residential development. However, we are still struggling
with the following “public benefits” listed: 1) "the public viewing deck" when easy access may not be
assured; 2) that the project be "designed to achieve a LEED Silver rating" (not a “Net Zero Energy” rating)
as this is the minimum rating required through Executive Order B-18-12 for new or renovated State
buildings; and 3) “other policy objectives”, objectives that are either nebulous (i.e., “the approval of the
Planning Commission”) and/or hard to measure (i.e., conformance with the “the Downtown Strategic
Plan”). Thank you!
2