HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2018 Item 4 - CooperTo: SLO Planning Commission
Re: Public Noticies and Hearings: Article 6 & 7
From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown
Date: April 22, 2018
Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners -
Most of the following concerns are pertaining to maintaining the current level of public
oversight through public notices and hearings. We believe that good design and good planning
requires the on-going engagement of neighbors concerned with maintaining the quality of their
immediate surroundings.
Revisions proposed under Article 6 leaves out all reference to “Public Notices and Hearings”
under the heading of “Administrative Permits and Actions”. Are we to construe from this that
there will no longer be Administrative Hearings open to the public nor will these meetings be
noticed to the public? It is of concern to us that there will be no public oversight on granting
“high occupancy use permits”, home occupation (or live-work) permits nor revocations of use
permits granted to alcohol outlets, determinations of unique hardship for exceptions to
development standards and zoning variances. These are discretionary, not ministerial,
decisions which would benefit from public oversight. Moreover, the Director or his designee
can, without public oversight, adjudicate on all Tier 1 projects that have been reviewed by
either the CHC or ARC.
We are also concerned that the quasi-judicial responsibility of the Planning Commission to
make adjustments to the C-D Zone development standards or to the Specific Focus Area
zones could involve increased heights or building setbacks without any input from the
Architectural Review Commission. There is no articulated mechanism proposed where these
changes to the building envelope could be referred back to the ARC.
We believe that since the California Housing Accountability Act requires that “feasibility” be
taken into consideration , the statement under “Burden of Proof and Precedence” should be
1
amended to read: “The burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the required
finding(s) for any permit or approval in compliance with this Division, including proof of
infeasibility and/or hardship, is the responsibility of the applicant.”
We would like to know the rationale behind striking out the following passage: “Made Available
for Public Review: After an application has been accepted as complete, in compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act, the application may be made available for public review as
requested.”
As far as we can tell, you are not scheduled tonight to discuss the following suggestions
proposed by staff and approved in policy by the Council on April 10th - suggestions that would
further “streamline and simplify” the development review process. But we would like to address
these suggestions as well.
First the ARC’s purview is proposed to be scaled back to conceptual review. This will limit the
public’s opportunity to comment on parking layouts, floor plan layouts and landscaping as
these items will be referred to the Director. Second, the Tree Committee’s purview will be
scaled back as they will no longer review street tree removal. Again this will stifle the public’s
opportunity to comment. Lastly, both ARC and CHC recommendations will be simply
“Pursuant to State law, a review authority shall not deny nor render infeasible a multi-family 1
housing development…”
Rcvd: 04-23-2018
Item #: 4
“advisory” to the the Director. The Director will make all final decisions without any public
oversight. For Tier 1 projects (5 units or smaller and less than 10,000 sq.ft.), the Planning
Commission will automatically be left out of the review process, no matter how controversial
the project may be and so will go “good planning”. When the meeting dates for the CHC and
ARC are scheduled to take place at the same time, there will be little opportunity for the ARC to
be advised of concerns the CHC may have with any given project. Moreover, if the CHC denies
the project and the ARC approves the project, then these disagreements must be sorted out by
the Director, again leaving the public completely out of these deliberations. Thank you!
4
B. Table 6-1 (Review Authority), identifies the Review Authority responsible for reviewing and making decisions on
each type of application required by these Zoning Regulations.
C. The Architectural Review Committee has the authority to review and make recommendations to either the Director
or the Planning Commission, depending upon the type of project application, regarding compliance with applicable
design guidelines. Section 2.48.050 (Projects Subject to Architectural Review) establishes the types of projects
subject to architectural review
Table 6-1
Review Authority
Type of Action
Applicable
Code
Section
Role of Review Authority (1)
Director Commission Council
Legislative Actions
Development Agreements and
Amendments
Recommend (1) Recommend Decision
General Plan Amendments Recommend (1) Recommend Decision
Specific Plans and Amendments Recommend Recommend Decision
Zoning Map Amendments Recommend Recommend Decision
Zoning Regulations Amendments Recommend (1) Recommend Decision
Planning Permits and Approvals and Administrative Actions
Affordable Housing Incentives Recommend Recommend Decision
Building Setback Lines Recommend Decision Appeal
Conditional Use Permits Recommend Decision Appeal
Development Review – Tier I Decision(2) Appeal --Appeal
Development Review – Tier II Recommend Decision Appeal
Director’s Action Decision(2) Appeal Appeal
Downtown Commercial Zone –
Adjustments to Standards
Recommend Decision Appeal
High Occupancy Residential Authorization Decision(2) Appeal Appeal
Home Occupation Permits Article 4,
Sec.
17.xx.xxx
Decision (2) Appeal Appeal --
Interpretations Decision (2) Appeal Appeal
Minor Use Permits Decision (2) Appeal Appeal
PD Overlay Zone – Major Amendments to
Final Development Plan
Recommend Decision Appeal
PD Overlay Zone – Minor Amendments to
Final Development Plan
Decision(2) Appeal Appeal
Planned Developments Recommend Decision Appeal
Reasonable Accommodations Decision (2) Appeal Appeal
SF Overlay Zone – Review Authority in
Specific Focus Areas.
Recommend Appeal Appeal
Temporary Use Permits Article 4,
Sec.
17.xx.xxx
Decision (2) Appeal --lAppeal
Variances Decision(2) Appeal Appeal
Attachment 4
Packet Page 54