HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/25/2022 Item 3a, Lucas
Delgado, Adriana
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:31 PM
To:Christian, Kevin; Wilbanks, Megan; Delgado, Adriana
Cc:Corey, Tyler; Cohen, Rachel
Subject:FW: Minutes of the May 11 Planning Commission Meeting
Hello all,
th
I am forwarding correspondence received regarding the draft May 11 Planning Commission minutes that will
be considered at tomorrow’s hearing.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications.
Please Note: The Community Development Department permit counter at 919 Palm Street will be
closed during the week of May 23rd (Monday, May 23rd - Friday, May 27th) so that we can accomplish a
major upgrade to our Energov permitting system. We will not be issuing new permits while the system
is being updated. Please plan accordingly. If you have a special circumstance, please let us know in
advance. Thank you!
From: Bob <
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:53 PM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Subject: Minutes of the May 11 Planning Commission Meeting
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hannah, please forward this to the Planning Commission for consideration before its meeting on May
25 and adoption of minutes.
1
At its last meeting, the Planning Commission discussed a proposal from George
Peterson’s LLC for a significantly new and different use of the space at 1701 Monterey
Street.
Seven letters and five speakers from the San Luis Drive neighborhood addressed the
proposal. Many wrote or talked about issues that they believed violated both the letter
and the spirit of Ordinance 1651. Residents raised issues about possible noise,
specifically those that could emanate from outside active recreation areas, from inside
live music on the side facing the creek, as well as other activities.
Yet the minutes make no mention of the Ordinance at all, nor of the time spent
discussing important issues it raised.
Ordinance 1651 is a critically important planning overlay designed to protect our
neighborhood of 175 residences from untoward intrusions along upper Monterey
Street. It protects the only place in town where CT and R1 zonings abut.
Commissioner Wulkan--the only member on the Commission surviving from only four
years ago when the original Ordinance was significantly revised, updated, and
strengthened in consultation with the Planning Commission--spoke to its importance
and its applicability.
Even so, early in the discussion of how the proposed project met the Ordinance’s
design criteria, the new Commissioner asked a basic question—why are we even
discussing Ordinance 1651 when Community Development has judged that the project
is categorically exempt from it? Wulkan did his best to defend its applicability, but the
Commissioner asked two more times, why anyone was paying attention to 1651 when
the project was categorically exempt?
It seems no one on the Planning Commission (the only people allowed to speak then)
felt familiar enough with the matter to say, hey, yes, the Department has identified a
categorical exemption, that’s true, but it claims it’s exempt from CEQA, not from
Ordinance 1651.
Not only did no commissioner speak to clarify the confusion, but staff either could not
or did not speak to a simple mix-up in terminology that would have serious
consequences upon the course of discussion. (All residents were aware that an
2
understandable blunder had been made by a new member, but they also knew that
they would have been shushed had anyone raised a hand.)
With the air thus muddied, it seemed that the LEGITIMATE questions members of the
neighborhood had raised, both in letters and in verbal comment, were glossed over
throughout the rest of the session. The project was approved with three new minor
conditions.
Finally, it’s important--and ironic--to note that when Community Development staff
member Hahn opened her discussion of the project, she said that the 1701 proposal
had been sent to the Planning Commission because Design Criterion #18 of
Ordinance 1651 specifically directs that any proposal with changes of a
substantive nature must be referred to the Planning Commission for a use
permit. In effect, had 1651 not been valid, legitimate, and categorically applicable,
the Commission would never have had the matter in its hands in the first place. It was
being discussed that night only because Ordinance 1651 had triggered it.
We are not quibbling about a subtle point or a minor oversight. Any matter important
enough to have merited its own ordinance should be taken seriously when it is
invoked.
I respectfully request that the minutes be amended to reflect this important matter.
Thank you,
Robert A. Lucas
1831 San Luis Drive
805 459 4344
3