HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/13/2018 Item 3, Peck
June 13, 2018
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
c/o Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director
of the Zoning Ordinance we are keenly aware of how the Zoning Ordinance can either hinder or support
the achievement of the policy objectives identified in the LUCE and other City documents. The
comprehensive update that is now winding down is an important element in addressing changing local
market conditions, changing land use formats, and new City initiatives. The draft before you corrects
many issues in the current document.
1) Density in the Downtown; and,
2) Streamlining the Advisory Process.
Density in the Downtown
This topic area includes more than density and includes changes necessary to respond to changes in
retailing, and to increase the diversity of uses in the Downtown. Specific components of this issue that
deserve your attention include allowing more office uses on the ground floor level in the Downtown;
ensuring that residential densities in the Downtown can actually be achieved; emphasizing a form-based
approach rather than a use-based approach in Downtown; expanding CD zoning in conformance with
the Downtown Concept Plan; and, supporting special development requirements that recognize reduced
parking and vehicle trip generation associated with the Downtown.
The revisions before you go a long way to address these issues. More can be done to encourage office
uses in the Downtown (and not relegating signature and marque tenants to second story uses only). As
the role of retail, entertainment and hospitality uses has changed, private office space should be
encouraged in the Downtown; there is already a significant, important presence of public sector offices
in the Downtown, and more private sector office space is a needed element of any successful mix of
uses.
Streamline Permit Review and Advisory Body Processes
The current Advisory Body review process is cumbersome and defeats and discourages projects that
promote adopted City goals and policies. The proposed changes encourage meaningful, focused
decision making where ARC or Planning Commission approvals are needed and called for. The current
process is un-necessarily complicated and opaque and amounts to a regulatory corn maze that can only
be navigated by those most familiar with its intricacies. The general public is lost and baffled by the
process. The current proposal is a significant improvement that will be more approachable and
accessible to the public.
There should also be and increased number of approvals that are allowed at the staff level. The City has
a robust regulatory framework that can be competently and consistently implemented by your
professional staff.
There should also be to provide applicants with a quick review
-Application process
that is more of an informal consultation. This new process should be an expedited, quick-turnaround
process that would help with go-, no-go decision making and would not be an incremental increase in
staff work load. This may be beyond the current update, but I encourage the Planning Commission to
provide direction that this be implemented in the current update, or as a supplemental effort.
Finally, my compliments for undertaking this task. The result will be a development review process that
will have more consistency, promote adopted City goals and objectives, and prepare the City for next
quarter century.
Sincerely,
Stephen J, Peck, AICP
Peck Planning and Development