HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/13/2018 Item 3, Borland
June 13, 2018
To: Planning Commission of SLO City
From: Kathy Borland, Preserve the SLO Life
Re: Agenda Item 3 – Zoning regulations update
Preserve the SLO Life (PSL), an unincorporated association of neighborhood representatives
from around the City of SLO and surrounding areas, has significant concerns with the Zoning
Plan Update as currently proposed. While we respect the drive toward more efficient operations,
and recognize that this update is an integral part of moving our City forward, our membership
has several concerns with the plan before you.
Specifically, many of our local leaders are concerned with:
1. Proposed efficient development review process
2. Proposed changes to ADU regulations
3. Proposed parking regulations
4. Proposed incentives for housing projects
5. Alcohol Outlet Regulation for neighborhoods in and around the Downtown core as well
as areas on and around Monterey above Santa Rosa Street.
1. PSL neighborhood contributors have encountered a lack of neighborhood engagement in the
decision-making process as it currently stands. Lack of notice of hearing—even by those who
have signed up for alerts on specific projects—is a common complaint. It has led to negative
consequences for all involved as projects move forward. Early and meaningful discussion with
neighbors of planned and proposed projects encourages better projects to be designed from
get-go. Neighbors know what will and will not work, and offer a wealth of knowledge to improve
designs to ensure long-term compatibility with adjacent and impacted parcels’ existing uses.
While we support efficiencies in operations, we feel that the currently proposed structure goes
too far in removing public and advisory body oversight and direction, respectively. Modifications
requested by Tree Committee and CHC should be weighted more significantly in the decision-
making process, as these bodies are charged specifically with ensuring compatibility with
guidelines under their respective expertise.
2. PSL supports owner-occupancy requirements for parcels with ADUs. The hardship clause
with up to five years of extension is problematic. Five years is coincidently right around the time
it takes for a student to move through Cal Poly. Concerns of abuses of this hardship clause are
significant. A limit of 2 hardship extensions would be more feasible with concerns regarding
inheritance and other such hardships.
3. As the City revisits parking regulations, neighborhoods have expressed concerns relating
increasing competition for existing parking, prompting citizens to rely on creation of parking
districts as their only means of recourse. During this time of change and implementation of the
LUCE, until the infrastructure is fully built in a complete streets and bike network to make modal
shift goals feasible, the currently proposed parking reductions and credits system will not be
sufficient to meet near-term parking demands. This is a major quality of life issue for residents.
Some solutions proposed in recent developments further compound noise and other problems
associated with parcels that border existing residential uses as an answer for the meeting the
reduced parking requirements. This can also cause issues for those with disabilities and those
who use ride services, requiring increasing curb “wait space” as usage continues to rise among
younger and aging populations. Perhaps a phased approach that coincides with adoption of
alternative transportation methods would ease transitions.
4. A director should not have unchecked decision-making authority over approval and denial of
density bonuses, concessions and incentives. Time and time again, neighbors have come out
during public hearings to inform and improve projects where concessions will create undue
adverse effects on the neighborhood. These decisions should rest with Council, as they are a
reflection of current sentiments of the existing population with which Council has a sworn duty to
represent. Removal of this oversight is a removal of the public from these decisions. We support
evaluation and negotiation by the director, to be presented to Council for approval or denial as
representative of the community at large.
5. There are many successful models for alcohol outlet regulation, including those is areas
serving large numbers of tourists and students. Current regulation is either insufficient or
unenforceable. The impacts to neighborhoods in and around the downtown core with regard to
alcohol-related crime and disturbances are significant. These impacts could largely be mitigated
with stronger policies relating to concentration of alcohol permits.
In closing, we urge you to consider residents’ concerns at or above the importance of
stakeholders with varied interests. We all want SLO to be a pleasant place to live, work and
visit. In order to achieve that, everyone’s concerns need to matter.
We are in full support of Allan Cooper’s letter.
Sincerely,
Kathy Borland, Preserve the SLO Life