HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2018 Item 4 - Lucas1
Tonikian, Victoria
From:Davidson, Doug
Sent:Wednesday, April 25, 2018 12:57 PM
To:Tonikian, Victoria
Cc:Purrington, Teresa
Subject:FW: comment for Planning Commission April 25 meeting zoning, Article 6
Agenda correspondence for tonight
From: Bob [
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 12:34 PM
To: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>
Subject: comment for Planning Commission April 25 meeting zoning, Article 6
Would you please forward this letter to the Planning Commission for consideration before tonight's meeting.
Thank you for the chance to comment about the proposed streamlined review process in Article
6.
I too am concerned about the reduction in opportunities for meaningful public input, and
particularly about the reduced role for the ARC.
True the review process for new development is cumbersome. The San Luis Drive neighborhood
became aware of that when it protested violations of city zoning laws while the Hotel Monterey
was being reviewed. We found the whole review process, from an outsider’s point of view,
confusing and uncertain.
Oddly, although it seemed to take forever, the public review of hotel proposal took only six
months. During that time, there were an Administrative Officer Hearing, two sessions with the
Architectural Review Commission, another with the Planning Commission, and a final one before
the City Council. Given the enormity of the impact of that project, that strikes me as pretty
streamlined.
We needed all that time to make our point. The bulk of our input centered on openings and the
definition of the word “minimize.”
What was maddening was that the department rejected our interpretation even though no one in the
department would give us the definition they were using. They simply said the project fit their
definition.
Had it not been for a public hearing before you, where Mike Multari who signed the original
ordinance 25 years earlier and just happened to be on your commission, and espoused the definition
we and our dictionaries offered, the building would have been constructed as proposed, creating an
even greater negative impact on our neighborhood.
2
It would be great if we didn’t need to use words, but we do. This evening’s revision of Article 6
alone has about 21,840 words. The final complete revised code may have ten times that. Some of
those words will be quite clear to anyone; others will need judgment.
Public commissions and hearings are reserved for the important judgment calls. The
commissioners provide some, and the attendees provide more. All the commissions and committees
are appointed to serve the public by the City Council, has been elected to serve us. This creates
another form of assurance of public input. City staff don’t have the same level of accountability.
Please keep the ARC in its present place in the review process with its current role that has teeth.
Developers will still have the option of having an early hearing to get a sense of the
committee. But don’t make that their only role. Had there not been a robust public review of the
Monterey Hotel, it would have been approved and built with clear violations of Ordinance 1130.
Finally, my daughter is pursuing a Master’s Degree in Environmental and Public Policy and
Planning at Tufts University in Boston. She called us excitedly one night to say she’d just come
from a class about the importance of public input in planning. The document the professor used
as a model of public input was the LUCE 2035 report from San Luis Obispo.
Additional good reason to keep public input robust in the review process.
Thank you,
Bob Lucas
1831 San Luis Drive
43 year resident