HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDvariousph2RECEIVE D
SEP 0 7 201 0
SLO CITY CLER K
From :Brett Cross[SMTP :BRETTCROSS@YAHOO .COM]
Sent :Monday, September 06, 2010 7 :11 :10 P M
To :Council, SloCity; macsar99@yahoo .com ; RQN of SL O
Subject :Zoning Regulation Update PH 2
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Dear Mayor and Council Members ;
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods is concerned with the effects that changes to th e
density calculations and the number of bedrooms allowed in the R-2 (medium density )
zone if R-2 properties with small lot sizes are allowed to have the same number o f
bedrooms as R-1 properties .
It appears that the recommendations that are being proposed would allow up to 5
bedrooms on R-2 zoned properties regardless of lot size . "In the
R-1 zone, up to 5 bedrooms can be allowed in single family residences on parcels of an y
size . This change would set the same standard for the R-2 zone ."
This change is certainly contradictory to the concept of "affordable by design". Change s
will immediately make properties in the R-2 less affordable as the development potentia l
is increased. Adding bedrooms to currently developed properties will increase rents an d
make those properties less affordable .
The staff report doesn't address the requirement for parking and the impact that the lac k
of off-street parking can have on neighborhoods . The staff report also doesn't discus s
paving that is not included in the coverage calculations that is necessary for driveway an d
turning movements .
The Council should discuss the original intent of the R-2 zones in the context of establis h
R-2 neighborhoods and the strong sense of place that these neighborhoods afford curren t
residents .
Sincerely,
RED FIL E
RQN Chair .
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 7h1/°.ITEM #
From :Carolyn[SMTP :KE6HNG@ATT .NET]
Sent :Monday, September 06, 2010 10 :28 :01 P M
To : Council, SloCity
Subject :September 7, 2010 Agenda Item s
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Brett Cross
ttktz-o
1,d-COUNCI L
Er-eke-cry
ITACAO-azm
El-ATTORNEY
ElLERK/ORI Q
DEP HEADS
.<
uN .5
SGo Curry,V60S
a-CDD DI R
[SIN DI R
AFIRE CHIE F
CPW DI R
CrPOLIOE CH F
I-MO DI R
Z-UTIL DIR
BHP DI R
C®u'u ,
Ci rY rfclZ
Dear Mayor Romero and Council members :
I am writing to you regarding three items on Tuesday evening's
agenda under Agenda Item #2 "Review of Amendments to Municipa l
Code Title 17 : Zone Regulations ."
TRASH CAN ORDINANCE :
I am very pleased that the trash can problem is finally bein g
addressed . As I'm sure you have all noticed, many residents leav e
their trash cans either in their driveways, front yards, or at the curb al l
week not only creating a visible eyesore in our neighborhoods bu t
causing a health and safety hazard when those cans are tipped over b y
cars, animals, or the wind, spilling garbage on sidewalks and streets .
The proposed change to this ordinance indicates that trash can s
cannot be stored in the front yard area which is defined as "the area o f
a residential lot that lies between the street property line and the wall s
of any residence that faces the street ." (Attachment 1, Page PH2-21 o f
Brian Leveille's report).
Unfortunately, I do not believe this modification goes far enough t o
resolve the problems since the three trash cans will still be visible fro m
the street . Further, since there will be no screening requirement,I
believe it will be easy for residents to slowly "sneak" their cans bac k
into the front yard area and find some excuse why their cans cannot fi t
in the required area . If Council is truly intent on resolving this naggin g
problem and all its accompanying hazards, then I believe th e
ordinance can be made simple and clear to everyone by requiring tha t
trash cans cannot be visible from the street . If unsightly screenin g
occurs, neighborhood services can assist residents in resolving th e
inappropriate screening .
PARKING IN FRONT YARD AREAS
I applaud Brian Leveille's recent attempts to resolve this problem tha t
is not only particularly prevalent in parking districts but is als o
occurring in other areas of the City . Much of our rental population i s
students who occupy single-family residences . There are oftentimes 4 -
5 students renting a home, each with a vehicle as well as their friends '
vehicles who visit frequently . This tremendously overburdens th e
parking in single family neighborhoods throughout the City . Since it i s
illegal to park vehicles on front lawns, tenants and property owner s
have become "creative" in attempting to accommodate their excessiv e
parking by paving their front yards, allowing for more vehicles to b e
parked off the street . This has created an unsightly problem (see
photo on Page PH2-5), not only affecting property values but quality o f
life issues in many neighborhoods, that must be remedied . I am very
disappointed that the Planning Commission felt that the change s
suggested by staff were too restrictive and couldn't support an y
revisions to alleviate this problem . I encourage the Council to direc t
staff to work on this issue further and bring back solutions to thi s
major problem causing anxiety and frustration in our neighborhoods .
DENSITY :
If I understand Mr . Leveille's proposed change to our R-2 zone s
correctly, R-2 zones will be allowed to be developed at higher densit y
than is currently permitted . I strongly urge the Council to oppose thi s
modification . I attended all of the public meetings of the Housin g
Element . Jeff Hook represented that our City's R-1 residentia l
neighborhoods have the highest density than most other cities in th e
State of California . This has caused a multitude of problems in ou r
neighborhoods and in the city at large including, housing deterioration ,
parking, noise, traffic, alcohol related offenses and other crimes .I
personally know several families who have moved out of our Cit y
neighborhoods because of these problems and the word is out tha t
living in SLO neighborhoods can be undesirable because of the hig h
number of rentals . In fact, a SLO realtor recently informed me tha t
families don't even want to view a single family residence for sale in a
neighborhood with a high density of rentals because of their inheren t
problems .
Many of our R-2 zoned areas are adjacent to our R-1 residentia l
neighborhoods . Allowing more density in the R-2 zones will creat e
additional negative edge impact on our R-1 neighborhoods over an d
above what they are already experiencing . There will be more traffi c
and parking problems, more noise, more crime, etc . which will directl y
affect our single family neighborhoods . This will have a reverse affec t
on the City's desire to create more "affordable" housing for workin g
families since further deterioration of our neighborhoods will onl y
continue to discourage families from buying these homes .
Thank you for your consideration and attention to these vital problem s
facing our City .
Carolyn Smit h
1568 Cucaracha Court
San Luis Obispo,CA 9340 5
544-339 7
From : Sandra Rowley[SMTP :MACSAR99@YAHOO .COM ]
Sent : Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10 :44:07 A M
To : Council, SloCit y
Cc : Lichtig, Katie ; Leveille, Bria n
Subject :Public Hearing Item #2
Auto forwarded by a Rul e
Dear Mr . Mayor and Council Members ,
Four of the possible amendments to Municipal Code Title 17 : Zoning Regulations appl y
directly to the quality of life of San Luis Obispo residents : changes to the density of R-2
zones, tandem parking, trash receptacles in front yard areas, and parking in front yar d
areas . These, in my opinion, deserve additional contemplation before you make a
decision .
Chapters 17 .16 .010 .A .2 (Density) and Chapter 17 .26 .020 .
The most important, far-reaching and detrimental to the city and to residents of the R-2
zone is the proposed change to the density calculation for R-2 . The proposed change
from a density calculation based on number of bedrooms per acre to a calculation base d
on number of units per acre will allow the deterioration experienced in several of our R-1
neighborhoods to occur in R-2, including the additional noise, excessive trash, increase d
parking problems, and traffic issues . And, it has the real potential of resulting i n
blighted areas surrounding our downtown core .
Almost two years ago, as I recall, the council changed the minimum lot size for R-2
through R-4 from 6,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet . This was at a time when
development on some R-2 lots that were over 10,000 square feet but less than 12,00 0
square feet was contemplated . The change allowed those lots to be split . Fortunately fo r
those living in R-2, although more dwellings were allowed to be built, the overall densit y
permitted, i .e ., number of bedrooms per acre, remained the same . If the council wants t o
allow units with more bedrooms on R-2 lots, suggest the 6,000 square foot lot size b e
restored .
There are a few things about R-2 not mentioned in the staff report that are important t o
consider : 1) many lots are grandfathered at less than 5,000 square feet, some far less ; 2 )
many grandfathered lots are "over-built" by today's standards with one or more non -
guest house dwelling because additional dwellings were constructed before standards
existed ; 3) parking has always been a problem because many of the properties do no t
have garages, have a small garage or have a garage that has been converted to livin g
space . As a result, the true density of R-2 neighborhoods is greater than the 12 density
units per net acre standard . Further increasing that density would exacerbate problem s
that already exist .
I hope I have provided compelling reasons for you to decline to make this change .
Chapter 17 .16 .060 .J .1 (Tandem Parking).I support the addition to this paragraph .
Chapter 17 .17 .075 (Neighborhood Preservation). Receptacles in front yard areas .
I support the addition of this paragraph . However, a requirement to screen thes e
receptacles from public view needs to be included . In some areas of the city, even i n
areas where a fence and gate exist, receptacles are left in front of the gate in full view o f
the sidewalk and street . Screening can be as simple as placing receptacles behind a n
existing gate, in the garage or beside/behind the house (as long as the area cannot be see n
from the sidewalk or street). In areas where screening is not as simple, construction of a n
enclosure is not expensive . Regardless of the method used, the receptacles should b e
screened from public view .
Chapter 17 .17 .040 (Visible storage or maintenance) and Chapter 17 .17 .050 (Front yar d
paving).
I support staff's recommendation to bring back amendments on these items at a late r
date . As the photograph on page 5 (Figure 1 . Example of illegal front yard parking )
shows, this is an issue that needs to be addressed .
Thank you for your time and attention .
Sandra Rowley