The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/27/2019 Item 0, Lopes Purrington, Teresa From:James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net> Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2019 5:24 PM To:Codron, Michael Cc:Oetzell, Walter; Advisory Bodies; Allan Cooper; Russ Brown Subject:Supplement to Planning Commission letter of February 27, 2019 Attachments:jameslopes.vcf Michael Codron, Director of Community Development City of San Luis Obispo March 7, 2019 RE: Supplement to My Comments to Planning Commission, February 27, 2019 Dear Mr. Codron, Please consider the comments in the email below from Walter Oetzall. I am asking that they be added to your review of my comments to the Planning Commission on February 27, 2019. The primary point is that Mr. Oetzall stated in points 2 and 3 below, that the Minor Development Review is a discretionary permit, and conditions of approval were added to the 1085 Santa Rosa project approval due to this fact. His point agrees with mine, which led me to ask the Planning Commission to investigate why the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.106.010, Purpose and Intent, states that this and all other development review permits are for "development projects that do not require any discretionary permits." More importantly, if this is a discretionary permit, why is no public hearing required? I would like to add Mr. Oetzall's response as material supporting my request to invalidate the Minor Development Review for any request which involves discretion, in particular, Section 17.106.030 B.3, because the City has not acted in the public's interest to protect its right to fair due process of review with a public hearing. I also ask that you invalidate the approval of the Minor Development Review for the 1085 Santa Rosa project (and perhaps others) due to the dramatic difference in existing and proposed architecture and site development. The project clearly exceeds the qualifying criteria limiting this review to remodel projects which are considered "minor or incidental to a larger approved project." This project could be assigned a higher level of permit, such as a Moderate Development Review. Due to the rapid construction activity, I also ask that construction be suspended until the proper permit has been approved. It is significant that the Moderate Development Review process does include a public hearing, which incorporates due process. However, it countermands the preamble policy, resulting in confusion whether the City intends for any "Development Review" permit to have discretion and a public hearing. If you want to continue with the Minor Development Review, related to significant modifications of architecture, then please refer to Section 17.106.030 C.6. This section states the qualifying criteria for a Moderate Development Review, which includes any building remodel "that is considered a significant ...modification to a previously approved project." It is apparent that the 1085 Santa Rosa remodel is exactly a "significant modification." Since almost the entire exterior of the building and roofline is being modified, it exceeds the threshold of 25 percent of floor area for a "remodel" for this permit (Section 17.106.020 B.2). If somehow you consider architectural modifications as unrelated to this Moderate Development Review criteria, then I ask that you determine what other permit is necessary for a remodel which exceeds the ceiling of what "is considered minor or incidental" (17.106.030 B.3) for a Minor Development Review. 1 If the qualifying criteria in the Moderate Development Review section do not in your mind relate more directly to the 1083 Santa Rosa project than the Minor Development Review, then I request that you propose a Zoning Ordinance amendment to include a public hearing for the Minor Development level of review, in validate the 1085 Santa Rosa permit and conduct a new review with the revised Minor Development Review process and public hearing. Sincerely, James Lopes, Save Our Downtown -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Development Review Provisions Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 20:31:35 +0000 From: Oetzell, Walter <woetzell@slocity.org> To: James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net> CC: Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com>, Russ Brown <taichibro@gmail.com>, Sandra Marshall <sandramarshall1011@gmail.com> Hello again Mr. Lopes, In answer to the questions you emailed recently about the Development Review provisions in the 2018 Update of Zoning Regulations, I provide the following responses: 1. How is the Minor Development Review related to a Minor Use Permit, which must have a public hearing? The new code apparently does not clarify terms here, by the way. A Moderate Development Review is not defined as a Minor Use Permit in the code, so we are left to wonder which is Minor. Minor Development Review is not related to a Minor Use Permit. Those are separate review processes described in different sections of the Zoning Regulations: Ch. 17.10 (Use Regulations) describes the review process for Minor Use Permits; and Ch. 17.106 (Development Review) describes the review process for Development Review (including Minor Development Review). 2. Is the Minor Development Review a discretionary decision? The Zoning Ordinance does not require a public hearing, so are we to conclude that it is an administrative decision? Minor Development Review is a "level of review" that requires a discretionary decision by the Community Development Director. 3. If the Minor Development Review decision is an administrative or ministerial one, then State law may not allow conditions of approval to be required. Were conditions of approval required for this project? Minor Development Review is a discretionary decision and conditions of approval can be imposed for these types of projects. For this particular application, conditions of approval were imposed, as described in the decision letter previously forwarded to you in response to your request. 2 4. What is the public notice for a Minor Development Review? Is it a legal ad? What was the notice for this project? Seven days prior to the Director taking action, public notice is provided with a legal ad in a local newspaper and postcards mailed to owners and occupants of property within 100 feet of the subject site. 5. Is the decision announced in some publication to inform the public that an appeal period has started? Yes. A pending decision on a Director's Action application is announced in the New Times newspaper at least 7 days prior to action being taken and describing the appeal period and means of filing an appeal. Interested parties who have submitted written correspondence on the item during application review, or have requested to be notified of a decision, are also contacted by the project planner once a decision has been made. 6. Is an Appeal even possible for a Minor Development Review? Reading 17.126.010 – Standing to Appeal, it appears that an appeal is NOT allowed for an administrative decision. Yes. Appeals of Minor Development Review can be appealed to the Planning Commission. §17.126.010 makes reference to a small range of specific administrative decisions which may not be appealed, and those do not include administrative actions taken on development applications, which are discretionary decisions. 7. If the City considers an Appeal possible for a Minor Development Review, when does the Appeal period start? Is the Appeal to the Planning Commission? The appeal period starts on the date of the decision. Appeals of Minor Development Review are considered by the Planning Commission. 8. Is it too late to appeal this project \[at 1085 Higuera\], if eligible? Yes. The decision was taken on this application on December 4th, 2018. The appeal period ended at the end of the day Friday, December 14th, 2018. I hope you find this information useful. Feel free to contact me any time if I can be of further assistance… Walter Oetzell Assistant Planner Community Development Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E woetzell@slocity.org T 805.781.7593 slocity.org 3 4