The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-15-2014 c4 evansKremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:06 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Agenda Correspondence for Item C -4 for 07/15/14. Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk c1l'y cal sm) I ms orfspo 9c)c Palm Street San Luis C)L)ispo, CA 9340 -1 tel 805.781.702 JUL 14 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date "�� -I "Item# From: Pete Evans [mailto:riki77 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 1:31 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: A dolts are pack ra is o f useless old ern o Lions SLO City Council Agenda item C4 (new regs for guest houses, guest rooms etc), July 15, 2014 Agenda Dear CC member, I have just heard of this lissue despite the claims from staff that 'required' public notification has been accomplished, I apologize for rushing in at this late date. It seems from the volumes of material the Planning Commision had some objections about the onerous and burdensome regulations proposed by staff (which obviously perpetuates the need for more staff). So do I. The news reported at least one council member calling for residents to 'rat out' their neighbors, shameful advice for the citizenry. We used to hear that all sorts of nasty regimes (Nazis, stalinists etc) encouraged the same thing. I assume this issue arose from RQN and others of that ilk complaining about parking and density issues. I wonder how many valid complaints there have actually been and if any, do they represent a 'call to action' of this scope since we have a multitude of existing regulations governing most aspects of our lives, even in our own homes. The proposed additions to existing codes mention, among other things, consistency with the architecture of dwellings on the property and neighboring properties. That strikes me as a cruel joke since most new construction is totally out of whack with existing structures. What do you call a grey boxy stucco building on a block of craftsman houses? What do you think of all new commercial construction vs existing older buildings? Most of the new stuff is hideous. These are the sorts of things past councils and you have allowed. Since this area is always in a bit of a housing crunch I wonder how staff can state (Sect 4, 6A4) that a goal of this ordinance is to expand housing for low to mod income folks. In fact you know fully well that this new set of rules will do the opposite, as has the over jealous enforcement of many harmless 'home modification' violations. And if you don't know (you should) some of the rules that govern our lives in this respect have nothing or little to do with safety or neighborly relations. They are rules handed down by entities elsewhere that we simply blindly adopt. Staff liberally states that 'outlaw and /or un permitted' alterations damage the community in some way (with no further info, as though that is a given). There seem to be arbitrary proposed bans on bathrooms here, kitchen facilities there; with parking, landscaping and height limit issues mentioned throughout. I think staff has gone regulation mad. What is the big deal with all this? Have there been reports of beleaguered tenants forced to live in substandard facilities? The proposed 'owner agreements' just set up yet more draconian consequences for those who exercise some initiative, freedom and creativity. Do you remember when Sandra Fluke tried to address the Congressional Committee about a woman's right to choose her health care? They threw her out. You remember, a bunch of tired old white men just had no idea of how to cope with the ideas of a young woman facing these issues. I'll bet you were outraged, like most of the public was. I don't suppose you could transpose the same concept to us, right here in River City. You are settled, established in a comfortable home; you probably have a nice income and feel all righteous about your mandate to manage a clean and tidy city. But what about those who aren't so 'set', those who might need to rent out a room, back house or other accommodation to make ends meet or take care of Mom in her declining years? You say they can do it, but with all the rules, costs, demands and threats many choose to 'go around' all that. I think you need to step back a bit and try to manage for all the citizens, not just the stuffy upper classes. You are perpetuating the same planning methodology that sterilizes any town, discouraging diversity and excitement. Say, what happened to our Mardi Gras, our Fiesta parade etc ? ? ? ?? Do you mandate all those identical white awnings for all our affairs in Mission Plaza (boring!)? Use to be there was some creativity, now even artists 'toe the line' and act like good boys and girls. Maybe you should see how the city can help its citizens instead of criminalizing them. Maybe you could direct staff to help applicants instead of increasing the confrontational situation that already exists, and by these new and repugnant rules. I see staff has conveniently declared a neg dec, au contraire! What about the loss of housing and subsequent demand to then build more housing, creating more environmental consequences? I know of a relatively recent construction that utilized maybe a thousand yards of concrete (very non environmental). They covered almost every square inch of the property with it, built a giant home (for two people) that shades two neighbors from the sun in the winter (just when every photon is needed). It has a garage and onsite parking area, yet they still park one vehicle in the street. And this house, behind an already existing house (lovely craftsman style) is an 'in your face' stucco monster (probably viewable from space without a telescope). So much for your parking rules, consistency rules, height rules and neighborly welfare issues. Plus, it is a water run off disaster and I suppose the wealthy owners got special treatment from the city. The proposed rules are too much. They are complicated and confusing. They say only one 'unit' is allowed, the owner must live onsite, all approvals go away if the owner sells or moves (even temporarily ?). The owner must buy in to new 'agreements', get permits for all the details and limiting factors (mentioned above). No bathrooms here, no kitchen or wet bar there, must be so large but not too much. Half a year ago I asked you and other CC members just why the city had an outright ban on temporary rentals, no one had an answer. You are redoing that ill gotten regulation now to rectify the error. I wonder if you could consider the same question when reviewing all these new, and draconian, rules. Is this a snooty clamping down on students, student rentals, anyone who defies the myriad codes -or is it really necessary for a decent society? We are all prisoners of the times, but you are smart and should be able to see many sides of an issue. Surely you can protect the residents in crowded neighborhoods without all this nonsense. Isn't there some value in the saying, "the best government is that which governs least "? I think you are often governing most. I am not alone. Pete Evans