Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/20/2024 Item 6c, Detz Wilbanks, Megan From:Toni Detz <toni.detz@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 15, 2024 5:34 PM To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Hanh, Hannah; Stewart, Erica A; McDonald, Whitney Subject:City Council Meeting 8/20/24 regarding CN Zone changes Attachments:City Council Meeting-1827 Broad St.pdf; 1827 Broad St - Jan 2012 last pic of phone center business-1.pdf; 1827 Broad St - April 2015-last pic as a business.pdf; 1827 Broad St - April 2016.pdf; 1827 Broad St March 2024.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. To: City Council Members, Mayor, and City Manager- Please see the attached documents regarding the last agenda item (6c) for the 8/20/24 meeting concerning a CN zoning change that was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on June 12, 2024. The change is necessary based on a mistake that was made in 2018 that removed the properties ability to change back to Residential from Commercial in the CN Zone. Please see our attached letter and pictures to help understand the situation. Thank you, Toni and Gerry Detz 1 8/15/24 San Luis Obispo City Council Re: C-N Zone Text amendment, item 6.C. On June 12th with the full support of the Planning Department, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposal for a text amendment for Title 17, table 2.1 for allowing residenOal and mulO-family use in the C-N zone with a minor use permit. We too want to formally give our support in amending this ordinance/zoning regulaOon especially since the City back in 2018 mistakenly omi6ed the allowable residen:al use from table 2.1 and did not no:fy property owners. Common sense would say that a residenOal structure in a C-N zone that started as a residence, then was used as a business following all the necessary permits, should be able to go back to being a residence with minimal cost and process, especially if there were no structural addiOons to the footprint to the exisOng structures. Amending the C-N regulaOon and then possibly streamlining the process to return to residenOal use, will increase future housing in San Luis Obispo with minimal changes to a neighborhood or need for more new construcOon. AddiOonally, C-N zoned properOes with this revision and approval for residenOal use will sOll have the flexibility to become a commercial use property, thereby providing the neighborhood future enhancements if the commercial and residenOal landscape changes. All posi:ve steps that will help meet the needs of our community. The omission of residenOal use in 2018 to the C-N regulaOon that prohibits Commercial properOes from returning back to ResidenOal status makes no sense, not in 2018 and not now. The City not only did not inform the property owners of the ordinance change in 2018, the Planning department in their own admission, does not know why removing residen:al as an allowable use was omi6ed. (“It is not clear to staff if this change was inten:onal or an oversight as there was no specific discussion in the staff reports, presenta:ons, or minutes from the public hearings regarding this amendment”) These two points substanOally impacted our property in a negaOve way as we lost our potenOal buyer aVer our property went into escrow when we found out about the 2018 change by accident. If we had been noOfied, we would have had a chance to voice our concern in 2018. Instead, we felt blindsided in February, 2024 and now have waited months for this change. Revising this text amendment is a necessary first step in resolving our issue with the City pertaining to our property. We feel when this revision is approved, the City Council should also consider a proposal that cuts the costs and process for proper:es mee:ng certain criteria. The cost and process of a M.U.P. and Building permit are shockingly excessive based on our experience. Following the spirit of the state H.O.M.E. act SB9, the passage of this amendment text change should be an easy decision. However; the points listed in an arOcle by our Public CommunicaOons Manager imply there is some kind of streamlined process currently in place to cut the red tape, reduce development costs, streamline the permit process etc. which in our opinion do not exist. Page 2 Our property needed our relentless efforts working with the Planning Department to help understand the unfair situaOon (thankfully they did). AVer the Planning Commission approval, we sOll need to maneuver through two City Council meeOngs, a costly minor use permit (we were quoted a minimum of $4000) and a building permit with esOmates exceeding $3000). To top it off this process might not be completed unOl December and we started this in February. Somehow this does not seem like San Luis Obispo’s Pro Housing designa:on has the City thinking outside any box. Here are some excerpts from the arOcle touOng the City’s pro housing designaOon: Per Derek Johnson: “By earning the Pro housing DesignaOon, we have now been rewarded a compeOOve edge because of our efforts to cut through red tape, reduce construcOon and development costs, and create housing policies with a smart-growth mindset.” From Mayor Erica Stewart: “While the City government doesn’t build housing directly, the City has adopted – and conOnues to adopt – innovaOve policies that will create new housing developments and further the construcOon of more housing in San Luis Obispo” From our Governor on a January 31 news release: “We need to aggressively build more housing to support Californians. Proposing ciOes move to the front of the line when it comes to incenOves, funding and other state resources. It’s criOcal for more communiOes to join in this disOncOon and build their fair share of housing”. From the City of SLO: “The City has adopted a variety of new housing programs and policies to create new housing in SLO including: UpdaOng subdivision regulaOons to increase flexibility for small lot developments. InsOtuOng a Downtown Flexible Density pilot program to convert unused commercial spaces into small residenOal units with fewer requirements and restricOons. Streamlined permit processing for housing projects. Removed subjecOve design standards. The City also waives or defers permit fees on affordable housing that exceeds inclusionary requirements, voluntarily provides affordable housing, or is built and operated by the local housing authority, a nonprofit agency, or a government agency”. The Planning Department while sympatheOc to our situaOon, however none of the staff are given the ability to right this wrong. We do understand processes need to be in place and our situaOon may be unique, but that’s the point. If a property meets certain criteria, the Planning Department should have the ability to review a property request, decipher the informaOon such as changing from Commercial Use to ResidenOal Use with no building requirements and move forward. Then depending on the situaOon, they should be able to “cut the red tape” and streamline the permit process along with a reasonable fee. This should honestly take less than 30 days and cost about $300. Not months to get heard on a docket and a cost in excess of $7000. Page 3 AddiOonally, we were told that when this revision becomes official and our minor use permit and building permit processes are completed; if we wanted to add anything to the house like an extra room, we would need to revise the current minor use permit in place. The use is already residenOal adding a laundry room, bedroom or bathroom etc does not change the use of the property, this is a red tape unnecessary fee that should be abolished. There are 26 property addresses in about 2-block circumference of our property at 1827 Broad Street all zoned C-N that are residenOal looking houses and that the use is residenOal. The properOes to the north of us on Broad Street heading towards downtown are already R2. We are the last C-N zoned property before the R2 properOes work their way downtown. Overwhelmingly all the other structures in this C-N zone neighborhood circumference are a business use property. These buildings are absolutely a commercial looking structure and would require a more lengthy and costly process. Our property, though “converted” to commercial, looks and feels and is just like the other residenOal properOes in this neighborhood. Even when our Phone Center business was in operaOon the property looked and sOll looks today as it did in 1999, as a residence. The city mandated for us to maintain the residenOal look and feel. We went to great lengths to do so. We had no idea that we needed some other use permit aVer the business closed especially aVer maintaining our residenOal look throughout the years. Our building has the same footprint, the same number of rooms as it always had when it was first a residence, then a business and now a residence again. Inside, the home appliances, cabinets, bath fixtures and painOng have been updated. I’ve included a few pictures from google maps showing when the property was a business in 2012, 2015 and aVer the business closed and became a residence again in 2016 as well as a current 2024 picture. The property always looked like a residence and sOll does. There is no reason for such costly fees! On August 20th hopefully the City Council will not only approve the amendment without hesitaOon but also do something in the near future to help streamline the process, cunng red tape and reducing costs for property owners with a smart growth process in mind. Maybe a consideraOon that all minor use permits are not created equal. If a minor use permit is absolutely necessary then an applicaOon and its cost should be separated into two categories. ProperOes that need a complete tear down or restructure, major addiOons, and vacant land from the properOes where the exisOng structure needs very minor changes and no addiOon to the footprint of the structure or property. Thank you to the Planning Commission and Hannah Hahn for recommending approval and bringing this amendment to the City Council. The Planning Dept Commissioners comments during the hearing on June 12th were all supporOve and sympatheOc to our situaOon and wanted the Planning commission to cut costs but were told that was not the subject at hand that night. Hopefully this is the forum for those changes and if not please let us know what we can do to advocate for these changes. Thank you in advance for approving the amendment. Respecoully, Gerry and Toni Detz Image capture: Jan 2012 © 2024 Google San Luis Obispo, California Google Street View Jan 2012 See latest date Image capture: Apr 2015 © 2024 Google San Luis Obispo, California Google Street View Apr 2015 See latest date Image capture: Apr 2016 © 2024 Google San Luis Obispo, California Google Street View Apr 2016 See latest date -4 owl 4b 4p lot % tp ALI