“Forward with the Dream”
1 | Page
June 7, 2023
To: San Clemente Planning Commission
From: Larry Culbertson
Re: Zoning Amendment 22-366 – Zoning Permit Streamlining Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Historical Society’s concern regarding Zoning Amendment 22-366 has not diminished since our letter of February 15. Despite city staff’s explanations, we believe that this Amendment would be a step backward in the long march toward providing protection for San Clemente’s historic resources and enhancing the village character we all cherish.
Of the 16 Proposed Permit Streamlining Items in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, eight would affect historic resources or the projects within 300 feet of them. The effect would be less protection for those historic resources and the neighborhoods around them.
It is important to remember that our Municipal Code requires that we protect not only our historic resources, but also our entire city’s identity as a Spanish village. The following is Municipal Code
17.16.100.A.1.b.Cultural Heritage Permit Purpose and Intent.
The purpose and intent of the architectural review with a cultural heritage emphasis is to provide for the review of projects affecting the City's cultural and/or historical resources. Along with the general goals for architectural review provided above, the process is intended to: 1) preserve and strengthen San Clemente's historic identity as a Spanish village, 2) preserve and strengthen the pedestrian-oriented areas designated in the General Plan as such, 3) preserve and protect those places, sites, buildings, structures, neighborhoods, objects, and improvements, manmade or natural, having a special historical, cultural, or architectural interest, 4) protect and enhance the City's attraction as a historic community to tourists and visitors, 5) promote the use of historic properties for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the City.
The proposed changes to the decision levels would be a disaster. Errors have occurred over the years with the existing Staff Waiver process. To rename the process Administrative Development Permit and then give one individual even more responsibility just about guarantees even more errors.
The combination of the Design Review Subcommittee review followed by the scrutiny of the seven-member Planning Commission has guaranteed high quality results with San Clemente ATTACHMENT 7
“Forward with the Dream”
2 | Page
discretionary projects for decades. Although not required, it seems we have historically had at least half of the Commissioners be experienced architects. The idea of turning over any of the decision-making process of important projects to a Zoning Administrator or City Planner of unknown experience and talent does not sound wise. The established criteria for what are important projects have worked well and do not need to be rewritten.
It is interesting how little interest the public has demonstrated for Streamlining. Over the past year, only two letters, your attachment 7, have been submitted. Neither was supportive of the proposed amendment. It would seem that no one is unhappy with the existing Zoning Code or decision-making process. Please, just leave it as be.
In closing, I urge you not to relinquish any of the decision-making responsibilities you have to staff. And to not downgrade the quality of protection afforded our historic resources in the existing Zoning Code.
Sincerely,
Larry Culbertson, President
“Forward with the Dream”
1 | Page
February 15, 2023
To: San Clemente Planning Commission
From: Larry Culbertson
Re: Zoning Amendment 22-366 – Zoning Permit Streamlining Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Historical Society is concerned about the Zoning Permit Streamlining being considered by the City. The project proposes many changes in a lot of areas, our concern lies in the effect it would have on our historic resources and the “village character” that is so important to what makes up San Clemente.
I apologize for not attending the January 18, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting to address our concerns. Frankly, the 213-page Staff Report was rather intimidating, and I did not feel qualified to testify. After carefully reading the report, listening closely to the recording of that meeting, and meeting with staff, a vague understanding of the project is emerging.
So many great points were raised by Commissioners at that meeting. - High level of concern for the importance of preserving San Clemente history (that warmed my heart).
- Support for the sanctity of the public’s right to know about projects, before they happen, and being able to have their concerns heard and considered.
-Council need to appreciate that they are asking for tradeoffs – faster approvals for less public input. -Need to consider the property rights of the neighbors as well as the applicant. -Need to appreciate that the writers of our current Code had determined that our historic resources were the heart of the City and they wanted to protect it. -The 300-foot discussion was had, and they decided in favor of protection. -There have been projects 300 feet away from historic resources that did affect the resource. -The number of CHP’s each year is not large.
-Need for Council to appreciate that much of the delay in the permitting process has nothing to do with Planning. Engineering, Building, OCFA, Public Works, et. al., all contribute to delays.
Environmental Review - What is being proposed is an enormous change to our Zoning Code. Some changes would adversely affect our historic resources. The changes to our discretionary review process would have dire consequences on those resources. The proposal to decrease the protected area surrounding some historic resources from 300 feet to 120 feet is particularly odious. Franky, I do not understand how staff can recommend that the amendments be found exempt from CEQA. There is absolutely no certainty that the Ordinance would not have a significant effect on our cultural environment. It certainly would.
J-1
“Forward with the Dream”
2 | Page
February 15, 2023
Administrative Development Permit – If I understand correctly, this would be reviewed only by staff. It is what we used to call a Staff Waiver. It would have a list of items eligible for this process.
The problem is we are understaffed. We do not even have a City Planner. You should not consider approving this new program until we get a full staff who has been here for a few years. It would be insanity to turn over even low level decision making to people who are not completely familiar with San Clemente’s Code and culture.
San Clemente is a historic town. We have 203 Designated Historic Resources, 5 of them on the National Register. Yet we have no Historic Preservation Officer. For years, the City has placed inexperienced planners to act in that position. As soon as they become proficient, they are transferred, or they leave. How can we have any hope that this proposed more lenient system will be good for historic preservation. It cannot.
120 feet vs. 300 feet - Staff has proposed that we slash the area within which Planning Commission approval is required from a 300-foot radius down to a 120-foot radius. The rationale offered is that the purpose and intent of a Cultural Heritage Permit is focused on the historic building. The proposed changes would make the CHP be just about the historic building. The Architectural Overlay and proximity to historic resources are less important and would receive less review. Development in that outer ring would no longer receive PC review it would drop all the way down to Administrative Development Permit which would only receive Staff Decision Without Public Hearing. This would be a catastrophe for historic preservation.
I believe that a thorough reading of Municipal Code 17.16.100.A.1.b. Cultural Heritage Permit Purpose and Intent (copied below) indicates that the zone of architectural review should extend far enough to ensure that projects do not negatively impact our historic identity as a Spanish village. 120 feet would not provide the necessary protection that our resources deserve.
The purpose and intent of the architectural review with a cultural heritage emphasis is to provide for the review of projects affecting the City's cultural and/or historical resources.
Along with the general goals for architectural review provided above, the process is intended to: 1) preserve and strengthen San Clemente's historic identity as a Spanish village, 2) preserve and strengthen the pedestrian-oriented areas designated in the General Plan as such, 3) preserve and protect those places, sites, buildings, structures, neighborhoods, objects, and improvements, manmade or natural, having a special historical, cultural, or architectural interest, 4) protect and enhance the City's attraction as a historic community to tourists and visitors, 5) promote the use of historic properties for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the City, 6) encourage and, where specified by this title, require architecture which reflects the community's historic pedestrian-oriented character, and 7) ensure compliance with the purpose and intent of the City's Architectural Overlay District for those projects within the district.
J-2
“Forward with the Dream”
3 | Page
February 15, 2023
Regarding the phrase, “Properties located further than 120 feet and two parcel, whichever is greater, up to 300 feet…” I do not understand it. What does the, “whichever is greater” refer to? What happens at the 300-foot line? We had a nice straight forward 300-foot rule. Replacing it with this new confusing standard is not streamlining.
We have been monitoring development for many years. We have not agreed with every decision the City has made. But the overall effect of existing Municipal Code on cultural heritage has been positive.
The discretionary oversight given to the Planning Commission by Municipal Code has resulted in high quality projects that are sensitive to preservation. This is not limited to projects directly involving historic resources but all of those in the Architectural Overlay and those outside the AO but in proximity to historic resources, even 300 feet away. And thank you for expanding the Architectural Overlay in the upper pier bowl, great move.
Council gave you a mandate to streamline the Zoning Permit process. Staff did an incredible job of assembling ideas to make this happen. Consolidating applications and clarifying procedures will help the effort. If replacing the Staff Waiver process with an Administrative Development Permit is what it takes to placate Council, then by all means do it. But please do not strip away the protections that have served our historic resources so well for all these many years. Please leave historic resources out of any attempt at streamlining. It is not needed and would be harmful.
Sincerely,
Larry Culbertson, President
J-3
From: Jim Holloway
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 2:55 PM
To: Chris Duncan; James, Gene; Atamian, Adam; Gallardo‐Daly, Cecilia; Lightfoot, Jonathan; Crandell, Barton
Cc: Jim Holloway
Subject: Suggestions for maintenance and improvement of process.
I have recently run into many of you at the grocery store, Zebra cafe, Chamber meetings, and elsewhere. The topic of streamlining keeps coming up So...
The following [on the next pages] are some ideas I put together in 2021 for Don Brown, at his request, on ways to improve the process.
The suggestions have to do with operational improvements, rather than policy. The suggestions are very simple and cheap and should lead to operational efficiency for both the staff and applicants.
Jim
J-4
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
J-9
J-10
“Forward with the Dream”
1 | Page
June 7, 2023
To: San Clemente Planning Commission
From: Larry Culbertson
Re: Zoning Amendment 22-366 – Zoning Permit Streamlining Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Historical Society’s concern regarding Zoning Amendment 22-366 has not diminished since our letter of February 15. Despite city staff’s explanations, we believe that this Amendment would be a step backward in the long march toward providing protection for San Clemente’s historic resources and enhancing the village character we all cherish.
Of the 16 Proposed Permit Streamlining Items in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, eight would affect historic resources or the projects within 300 feet of them. The effect would be less protection for those historic resources and the neighborhoods around them.
It is important to remember that our Municipal Code requires that we protect not only our historic resources, but also our entire city’s identity as a Spanish village. The following is Municipal Code
17.16.100.A.1.b.Cultural Heritage Permit Purpose and Intent.
The purpose and intent of the architectural review with a cultural heritage emphasis is to provide for the review of projects affecting the City's cultural and/or historical resources. Along with the general goals for architectural review provided above, the process is intended to: 1) preserve and strengthen San Clemente's historic identity as a Spanish village, 2) preserve and strengthen the pedestrian-oriented areas designated in the General Plan as such, 3) preserve and protect those places, sites, buildings, structures, neighborhoods, objects, and improvements, manmade or natural, having a special historical, cultural, or architectural interest, 4) protect and enhance the City's attraction as a historic community to tourists and visitors, 5) promote the use of historic properties for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the City.
The proposed changes to the decision levels would be a disaster. Errors have occurred over the years with the existing Staff Waiver process. To rename the process Administrative Development Permit and then give one individual even more responsibility just about guarantees even more errors.
The combination of the Design Review Subcommittee review followed by the scrutiny of the seven-member Planning Commission has guaranteed high quality results with San Clemente “Forward with the Dream”
2 | Page
discretionary projects for decades. Although not required, it seems we have historically had at least half of the Commissioners be experienced architects. The idea of turning over any of the decision-making process of important projects to a Zoning Administrator or City Planner of unknown experience and talent does not sound wise. The established criteria for what are important projects have worked well and do not need to be rewritten.
It is interesting how little interest the public has demonstrated for Streamlining. Over the past year, only two letters, your attachment 7, have been submitted. Neither was supportive of the proposed amendment. It would seem that no one is unhappy with the existing Zoning Code or decision-making process. Please, just leave it as be.
In closing, I urge you not to relinquish any of the decision-making responsibilities you have to staff. And to not downgrade the quality of protection afforded our historic resources in the existing Zoning Code.
Sincerely,
Larry Culbertson, President