HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/1995, 2 - TA 175-93: AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO STRENGTHEN PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS. llll�ry'�I�Illlln�lIl'IIIIII MEETING DATE:
W II �IIV
City 01" San LdIS OBISpO ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT •2
FROM: Arnold Jonas, ommunity Development Director n10
BY: Judith LautnerkJssociate Planner
SUBJECT: TA 1751 Amendments to the zoning regulations to strengthen property
maintenance provisions.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Pass to print an ordinance concurring with the negative declaration of environmental impact and
amending the zoning regulations to clarify 'and expand existing regulations and to improve and
simplify enforcement procedures, based on findings listed in this report, as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Report-in-brief
The City Council directed staff to draft property maintenance regulations, as part of a
neighborhood enhancement program. A staff committee developed draft regulations, held a
public workshop, and presented revised regulations to the Planning Commission on January 11,
1995. The regulations have been created primarily to address problems of visual blight in
residential and commercial neighborhoods, and include provisions to 1) regulate the use of
furniture, vehicles, equipment, and other items in street yards, 2) limit paving in front yards,
3) regulate the use of furniture and other equipment on roofs, 4) require maintenance of fences,
5) allow limited RV. camping in driveways, and 6) require maintenance of City-approved
landscaping.
The Planning Commission held two meetings on the regulations, closing the public hearing at
the end of the first. Public testimony focussed on RV parking, paving restrictions, screening
requirements, and the City's enforcement procedures. Many citizens objected to the prohibition
of RVs in driveways, to the limit on paving in front yards, and to the complaint process. On
February 8, 1995, the Commission recommended approval of the regulations with amendments
to the RV parking provisions and the paving percentage, plus several minor word changes. The
Commission preferred that the complaint process remain as is.
DISCUSSION
Backeround
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), a citywide neighborhood protection group,
proposed a property maintenance ordinance in April 1992. City staff held a public workshop
to discuss the essence of that proposal and received a wide range of support from citizens,
neighborhood groups, student groups, and property management businesses. The City Council
has long expressed an interest in helping to maintain and improve residential neighborhoods, and
set a goal in both the 1993-95.budget and the 1994 Land Use Element (LUE) to adopt property
maintenance regulations.
4v2
�11111III1pfp city of San Luis OBISPO
In UNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Property maintenance regulations
Page 2
Staff reviewed many ordinances, including the draft presented by RQN, prior to developing the
proposed regulations amendments. We met with interested groups several times and held a
public workshop. The Planning Commission reviewed the regulations on January 11 and on
February 8, and at its second meeting recommended approval of the proposal with some
amendments. The Planning Commission-amended proposal is attached to this report.
Data Summary
Address: Citywide
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo (City Council)
Zoning: Regulations affect all zones
General Plan: All Land Use Element designations
Environmental status: Negative declaration with mitigation granted by the Director on
December 8, 1994
Project action deadline: No State-mandated deadlines for legislative actions
Project description
The project is the expansion of existing regulations and streamlining of processing to make it
easier for the City to require maintenance of both commercial and residential property. The
expansion includes the addition of a new chapter to the zoning regulations (chapter 17.17) plus
modifications to several existing code sections. Primary elements of the regulations are:
o Screening requirement. A requirement that any furniture, large vehicles, boats, trailers,
and various materials, that are stored outside, be screened from public view, with some
notable exceptions. "Screening" means hidden from public view or behind a 6'-high
fence or hedge, where otherwise allowed.
o Paving limitation. A percentage limit on the amount of paving allowed in front yards.
o Roofing storage limits. A limitation on what can be placed on roofs.-
O Fence maintenance. A requirement that fencing be maintained in good condition.
o Visiting RV limits. A time limit on how long a recreational vehicle may "camp" in a
driveway, while the campers are visiting the residents of the home.
o Prohibition of RV as dwelling. A clarification that the use of recreational vehicles or
campers as permanent dwellings is prohibited, except in campgrounds or mobile home
parks.
0 landscape maintenance requirement. A requirement that yards with City-required
city of San JIS OBIspo
da R
OUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Property maintenance regulations
Page 3
landscape plans be maintained in accordance with those plans.
The proposed regulations also include new enforcement provisions, 1) malting violations of the
regulations an infraction, and 2) allowing private parties to pursue a private cause of action to
remedy code violations. These provisions are intended to make enforcement simpler and less
expensive for the City.
Evaluation
1. The Land Use Element calls for property maintenance regulations. Goals in the
recently-adopted Land Use Element include:
28. Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to live...
29. Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part
of a neighborhood pattern.
36. Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle,for recreation and
other daily activities.
These general goals are further developed in the programs. Section 2.10 in the Land Use
Element lists these programs:
2.10 Updating & Enforcing Standards
2.10.1 The City will review, revise if deemed desirable, and enforce noise,parking, and
properry-development and property -maintenance standards. Staff to adequately enforce
these standards will be provided.
2.10.2 The City will adopt and implement property-maintenance regulations,focused on
proper enclosure of trash, appearance of yards and buildings from the street, and storage
of vehicles. The regulations will be periodically reviewed and updated.
The proposed regulations are part of the implementation of these programs.
2. Findings can be made. To approve amendments to the zoning regulations requires only
that the Council find that the amendments are consistent with the general plan and that
they will not cause significant harm to the environment. The discussion under section
1, above ("The land use element...") indicates that the first finding can be made. The
environmental initial study (attached) concludes that the amendments will cause no
significant harm to the environment.
�-3
h
11111N%111 l jCity o� san IU s OBisp0
7QPUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Property maintenance regulations
Page 4
3. Why regulate these particular areas? The specific provisions were chosen because
a) The City receives numerous complaints yearly about conditions that are visible
from the street (storage of furniture in yards, broken fences, boats in driveways) and that
may pose health or safety problems (RVs camping in driveways, people living in
campers). Current regulations make many of these neighborhood problems difficult and
time-consuming to solve.
b) The intent is to get the most for the least. This means that an enforcement officer
can 1) determine quickly if a violation exists, 2) explain the situation to -the violator
easily; and 3) later determine quickly if the problem has been corrected. Focus was on
situations that most citizens would agree are detrimental to neighborhoods.
4. What's included. Included in the package are the following specific regulations:
a) Paving percentagg limit. The regulations limit paved area in front yards to no
more than 40% of the yard area. "Front yards" are specifically defined to include all
that area between residential buildings and the street property line, and are illustrated in
Exhibit A, Figure 1. The paving limit includes area within driveways, sidewalks, patios,
and any other impermeable surfaces. The intent of this regulation is to prevent
residential yards from being completely paved over. However, because there are yards
with significant percentages of hard surfaces that are attractive and compatible, the
regulations provide a simple exception process. Exceptions may be requested and
approved by letter to the Community Development Director.
Staff chose a percentage approach because it is easy to measure paved surfaces and
compare them with the front yard area. Staff initially proposed 50% as the maximum
amount of paving allowed. Representatives of a neighborhood group requested that the
limit be set at 30% instead. The Planning Commission opted for 40%, after determining
that 40% on a typical 50'-wide lot (minimum in the R-1 zone) would allow construction
of a 16'-wide driveway and four-foot-wide walkway. Additional paving would require
an exception.
b) Screening_requirement. The proposed regulations(see section 17.17.040)say that
certain items, including motorhomes, furniture, and boats, must-be screened from public
view. In residential areas, these items will be considered screened if they are not visible
from a public right-of--way or are behind a six-foot fence or hedge "where otherwise
allowed". Six-foot hedges and fences are normally only allowed at the street setback line
(20' from the street property line in R-1 and R-2 zones, 15' in R-3 and R-4). This
regulation effectively requires such objects to be outside of the streetyard and to be
screened from view.
1111MVQlQN11city O f San LaI S OBS spO
A UNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Property maintenance regulations
Page 5
This means that these objects and vehicles will be allowed on residential lots, but
generally not in streetyards and not unless they are behind a six-foot fence. Staff
considered prohibiting these objects altogether, but felt that the preferred approach is one
that allows the citizen some use of his or her lot for storage, but mitigates the effects of
that storage to an acceptable level. Screening requirements such as this one are
consistent with regulations in many other cities and might be considered "standard
practice".
Some citizens and Planning Commissioners felt that the screening requirement forces
residents to fence each other off. However, as stated in the Feb. 8 PC report, the goal
is to screen outdoor storage. If a resident chooses to store items in view of a public
right-of-way, those items should be screened. The screening requirement is an option
available to residents who do not wish to store large items off their lots.
The Planning Commission exempted recreational vehicles and trailers from the screening
requirement, as long as they are currently registered and are parked in a driveway. The
initial proposal to limit RV parking in driveways was the issue of greatest concern to
members of the public and to Planning Commissioners (see Jan. 11 and Feb. 8 minutes,
attached).
C) RV camping. The regulations will allow visitors of residents to park RV's in the
residents' driveways for up to three days (72 hours). Electricity and water connections
can be made to the residence, but such cords or hoses must not cross sidewalks. This
provision codifies a common practice, but provides standards and limits.
At the Planning Commission hearing (January 11), citizens expressed concern with the
72-hour limit, saying that this is too short a time for visitors from far.away (see January
11 minutes). The Planning Commission concurred with staff that longer time periods
would make enforcement more difficult and that travellers can make use of local
campgrounds for longer stays.
d) The 72-hour rule. All of the prohibited acts listed in the regulations become
violations after 72 hours. The three-day period is intended to limit complaints to those
violations that are on their way to becoming permanent. The period is short enough to
assure that violations do not become a neighborhood nuisance.
At the Planning Commission hearing, citizens testified that enforcement of this provision
could create a hardship for residents or property owners who are not in town when the
violation is cited. While the notice of violation may be sent only three days after a site
inspection, the date set for any court hearing will be at least 30 days later, and
enforcement staff will make every effort to contact the responsible parties prior to a
hearing. Therefore, it is unlikely that action will be taken on a violation without the
il!111111111p0§l City Of San IUIS OBISPO
UNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Property maintenance regulations
Page 6
knowledge of the property owner or resident. (See additional discussion in the City
Attorney office memorandum, attached.)
e) Enforcement simplified. The proposal specifies that violations will be treated as
infractions. Currently, all violations of the Municipal Code that are not otherwise
specified are treated as misdemeanors. The misdemeanor process is longer and more
cumbersome than the infraction process. The changes should allow faster action by the
code enforcement officer and therefore violations are expected to be corrected sooner.
The proposal further allows ,for private actions to be taken by citizens who are
dissatisfied with the City's process or order of priorities.
At the Planning Commission hearing, citizens and Commissioners expressed concern
about the City's enforcement process. Some felt that the complaint process "pits
neighbor against neighbor" and that complainants' names should be made public. Others
felt that violations should be cited by enforcement officers acting on their own, rather
than from complaints.
The.City's complaint process is long-established and has met the need for cost-effective
enforcement. Complaints are part of the "random" process by which the City is made
aware of code violations. Complainants' names are confidential to protect the
complainants from retaliation. The Planning Commission made no recommendation to
change this practice. (See additional discussion in the February 8 PC report and the City
Attorney memorandum, attached.)
5. Some groups and citizens would like the regulations to go farther. Concerned
citizens have indicated that they would like some provisions to be strengthened:
a) Landscaping. Some citizens would like the regulations to address a wider range of
landscaping maintenance concerns. The proposed regulations say only that those
properties that have City-required landscaping must be maintained in accordance with
landscape plans. Some citizens would like to see a way to require dirt yards to be
planted, to have grass mowed regularly, to have trees and shrubs pruned, and to have
weeds removed.
Staff considered ways to require regular yard maintenance of all property. However,
without extensive, detailed regulations, subjective judgment is required to determine
when a yard is properly maintained and when it is not. Enforcement time on policing
yards could become enormous. Staff's review of regulations by other cities revealed that
most cities rely on weed abatement provisions similar to San Luis Obispo's, and do not
address non-hazardous weeds, dirt yards, or slightly-tall grasses. Staff also has concerns
about enforcing landscaping provisions that will result in additional water use, given the
drought-prone nature of the community.
pli�lll city of San LaIS oaISpo
OUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Property maintenance regulations
Page 7
b) Screening. Some citizens oppose the proposed "screening" rule, saying that large
items would be visible above a 6'-high fence and should be required to be screened
completely or removed from the lot. Others feel that even rear .yards should be
maintained so as to be attractive to neighbors. As noted above, staff's position is that
the screening requirement is reasonable and should be satisfactory to most residents,
while not creating an unreasonable burden on owners of boats or other large items.
Maintenance requirements for back yards has been left out of these regulations because
of the emphasis on appearance from the street.
c) Large trucks. Some neighborhood groups would like to see large trucks (over 6 tons)
prohibited from residential neighborhoods altogether. Staff is sympathetic to this request,
and initially developed draft language to that effect. However, further research revealed
that the Municipal Code already prohibits night-time parking of such vehicles on streets
(MC Section 10.36.150), and in some areas (the Laguna neighborhood) these large trucks
are prohibited at any time. Further, State law requires that such laws be posted on all
affected streets, or on all streets nol so affected, whichever is easier (the Laguna streets
are posted in accordance with the State law). Creating and maintaining such signage
could become a headache for the Public Works Department. Because our current
regulations should be effective in most large-truck situations, staff eliminated this item
from the regulations. Now that staff has become aware of the overnight parking
prohibition, enforcement of that code will be stepped up.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may, by motion, deny the amendments.
The Council may continue action, with direction to staff.
The Council may approve the ordinance with amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT
Enforcement of the proposed regulations is not expected to make additional demands on either
code enforcement or police personnel. Improvements in code language and enforcement
techniques are expected to save time and money, allowing existing staff to handle a larger
number of violations is the same amount of time.
Attached:
o Draft ordinance O City Attorney office memorandum
o February 8 Planning Commission report O Table 1: status of existing codes
o Environmental initial study O Letters from citizens and groups
0 Planning Commission minutes: January 11 and February 8, 1995
ORDINANCE NO. (1995 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS TEXT TO STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND
EXISTING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
(TA 175-93)
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider
the zoning text amendment request TA 175-93 , adding a new section
and amending various other sections of the Zoning Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings;
Findings:
1. The text amendment is consistent with the General Plan, and
specifically with policies for residential areas in the Land Use
Element.
2 . An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the
Community Development Department on December 8, 1994, that
describes environmental impacts associated with the text changes.
The Community Development Director, on December 8, 1994, reviewed
the environmental initial study and granted a Negative Declaration
of environmental impact, with mitigation. The initial study
concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment, and the City Council hereby adopts the
Negative Declaration and finds that the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the City Council.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental determination. The City
council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration of environmental impact adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed zoning
text change, and reflects the independent judgement of the City
Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2 . Chapter 17. 17 is hereby added to the zoning
regulations, to read as shown on Exhibit A, attached.
SECTION 3 . Chapter 17. 04 is hereby amended to include
the following definitions:
1:7: :. A: ::19:Ss:<FroAtXX
;:; ..:.:.. �s.
T.
t , area of 1 es; denta3 Iat that }a esetteexs tYe stxeetraprCy
line` aac th walls o€ any :residences.; that f c� :t2�e stxeet tSe
.:....:..._ ........
rO
Ordinance no. (1995 Series)
TA 175-93 : Citywide
Page 2
A°`st# aC�. ha :>< incapa2e ob1ngrenetrats bury waer4
.::..:.5....... : "v.:A: .....n ..... .... ... vr.: .... .,,, :. ..
n,:M.'.>�wnr,:]v^�.YSv'n::x:n:nA.w:C.}}x%•:C':vr::<::;::::':^..`:::>i'.v�i�:i`:S.i:j?'a,'':n}.....:....::.:..n..'
.:...::::!:: �...:...:Mx......:...: ::::::.::.....
desx. ..a n..
eAn�::.'.V..:::::n.. ^ ».i::::::»::»::::::::: � :e.:'1:4^:.]:i.i:!.})}":i.}]i}:.}}'J.:.iW..ni}:x::iii::F.}�:O}]]::.yx,:wnw.w.n.:.v..mn.n.n.::.S::i:i}:,•»n.n.:»::::::..yyj��Y 4}:M}}}"ri/J�::}}}::_:!y'n••r':.:ray:::2:'fii:y(:.�i:[:y.�::....
1:T.�.T:iii:'T..��������;��'i::�.���!r:•. `ji:��::�::4:M:::�::�:?/.. �:�::
.:.v.:.:n».vn nvw:.xvv n:n:n.v i.`•>::i:.....::...:.nv...v.v:.n:.v:.wm:.mv:nx:.v.v n:9.0ii1i5-i:v.Pi:xix4ii i):•
SECTION 4. Section 17.08. 010.0 is hereby amended to
include the addition of the following:
. :'FteC ea Asn vehicle sy temporary dwellIna
::':<.v...... ..a... ..M.......... ....'.v)•;p..vn.:•:}::i:]':i:Y<:i::i::<fi`'::<.:i:'F::'.::i:].Si+:::^f:''i:.}"}f::^.i':`�!iiy..Ni:)S.i'tt)}:?]?]:F%+.4.4.4::i:".iii)::.�:..�ii'l.:i:::":.i:)i..i:]...]..t:i]4::f.i:•::iiiii:ii::ii:r:.:'.}:::ii
a�.z�C.�'��b�i'l'3� °irehio�.��'m��t',b� par�Ced �n a �esldent.�al pa�k].ng space
tp�}t�,k�V'�'L��',�'} �4}�+:.�E��.Q�S T1Cj'� '�".�.? ��fi���•,'�� �QL1�S�r:::;.���� �t�< �U1"�i"JSE* #
�atxsznc�..;."guests aP an szte residents: ; Crn7.� `SucYx:'.`.'`;���reat�anal
h'}
,�te�I,kngs;:�an the< site f�o� us;irig t�`tsirassigrl��•�p���t�.�is� 'Sp�Ges� nb
... ...
'`'<hcse, �lrii:ai ��sdF pzpe, zire, orrsth >± dv:iee extend�.nc
xo�a theriie ?# .:nX31 ktt ": >.'e7,'►En'fi� l�t#Y o�
::.. ...'. :.v... ...:..::....:..:...:.:....
SECTION 5. Chapter 17. 16 is hereby amended to include
the following addition:
F.eareatiaua Leha dwe as
�c �`eceat�ona� �ehicl�; caper shel3. ;,ar� simalz��; d�v�c��`sha�.l. b
used for I.��rng or sleep�,n+� �uart�rs e�€cept �n a lawfu�2.y crpexatec
.�.....a.s
.}i>:;<.i x>ii::.i:.}a;ii';i.•:i�";:i:x:;.2�::':ir::""?<i:i"'::x:i:x.::iii:�.:.:}::.::..};::.;i;::}::.;:;:::}...:...;,,,;....... ...............:.............:...................................
Arouided xn M.0 .
.T.::v::...:.::.nn.:..v................:::::..............:.::.a.Z��VZOn• �7 ;��4���4 Vi�� et ��qV
SECTION 6. Section 17. 16.020.C.3 is hereby amended to
read:
3 . All yards—shall be land-seeped ev maintalned in an ------
man
ig-ars�s:.: .;t ]thxty regtird ... andscare plansiall.. .;k�e
lanc caped ate na1zn -41.16J.0'.0'. n .. t e w t x ppravec� Sfax s.>
SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with
the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be
published once, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in
the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this
city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of
thirty (30) days after its final passage.
a2- 9
Ordinance no. (1995 Series)
TA 175-93 : Citywide
Page 3
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of
1995, on motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
t to ne
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.17
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS
Sections:
17.17.010 Purpose.
17.17.020 Applicability of other provisions.
17.17.030 General requirements.
17.17.040 visible storage or maintenance.
17.17. 050 Front yard paving.
17.17.060 Equipment on roofs.
17.17.070 Fences.
17. 17.080 Prohibited acts.
17.17.090 Private cause of action.
17.17.010 Purpose.
The quality of life in this city is tied to the character and
conditions of its neighborhoods. . The purpose of these property
maintenance standards is to protect the appearance, integrity and
character of the community.
17.17.020 Applicability of other provisions.
A. Use of property within the city may also be subject to
provisions of this code not contained in this chapter, including,
but not limited to, the following:
Solid waste disposal, Chapter 8 . 04
Hazardous weeds and debris, Chapter 8. 08
Nighttime parking of large vehicles, Section 10.36. 150
Parking in yard, Section 10. 36. 233
Uniform codes (building regulations) , Chapter 15. 04
Fire prevention code, Chapter 15. 08
Satellite dish antenna, Section 17. 16. 110
B. Where provisions of this chapter conflict with provisions of
other applicable laws, including this code, the more restrictive
provision shall prevail.
17.17.030 General requirements.
The provisions of this chapter apply to all zones in the city,
except as otherwise specified.
February 8 (P.C. version)
,v2_//
Property maintenance standards EXHIBIT A
Page 2
17.17.040 Visible storage or maintenance.
Storage and maintenance to be screened. Parking, storage,
stockpiling, or maintenance of any of the following items on
private property must be screened from any public right-of-way,
except as provided in section D, below. objects and activities
will be considered "screened" when they are either 1) not visible
from a public right-of-way or 2) behind a solid six-foot-high
fence, wall, or hedge where such fence, wall, or hedge is otherwise
permitted by zoning and building codes.
A. Furniture and other equipment. Furniture or other equipment,
including but not limited to stuffed couches and chairs, household
appliances, sinks, heaters, boilers, tanks, machinery, waste
haulers, garbage cans, recycle bins, barbecues, other household or
commercial equipment, or any parts thereof.
B. Materials. Materials, including but not limited to packing
boxes, lumber, dirt piles, wood, landscape materials, or debris.
C. Recreational vehicles and related devices.
1. Any airplane or other aircraft, or any parts thereof,
2 . Special mobile equipment or parts thereof, such as tar wagons,
water trailers, and similar devices as defined in section 575 of
the Vehicle Code,
3 . Boats, trailers, camper shells, recreational vehicles, jet
skis or similar devices, or parts from any -of these items.
D. Exceptions. The following may be allowed in front yards under
the noted circumstances:
1. Waste haulers and recycling containers may be placed for
pickup in accordance with Chapter 8. 04 of this code.
2. Materials, vehicles, equipment, or construction tools may be
placed in yards during construction with a valid building permit.
3 . Personal property owned or rented by the occupants may be
repaired, washed, cleaned, and serviced, subject to any other
relevant regulations, provided that vehicles are parked in a
driveway and that all work is completed within 72 hours.
4 . Storage, repair, and maintenance of vehicles or other
equipment may be allowed in commercial or agricultural areas
visible from a public right-of-way, where these activities are an
February 8 (P.C. Version)
-42.,
Property maintenance standards EXHIBIT A
Page 3
integral part of the commercial business and are conducted in
accordance with all other limitations on that business.
5. Barbecues and furniture that is designed and intended for
outdoor use may remain on a porch or in a walled front patio, where
the walls are designed in accordance with fence height regulations.
6. Recreational vehicles and trailers with current licenses may
be parked in driveways.
17.17.050 Front yard paving.
No more than 40% of any residential front yard (see Figure X) may
be covered by concrete or any other impervious material, including
driveways, patio areas, walkways, and other landscape features.
Upon written request, the Director may allow exceptions to this
requirement if he or she finds that the proposed paving will be
compatible with the-neighborhood.
17.17.060 Roofs.
A. No furniture or equipment, including chairs, mattresses,
couches, recreational furniture, or other materials may be placed
on any roof, patio cover, carport, shed top, or similar structure,
except for the following:
B. Exceptions.
1. Roof-top equipment, including antennas, satellite dishes,
masts, poles, heating, ventilation, air conditioning equipment and
similar devices that are designed for roof-top installation, and
were lawfully installed, may remain on the roof as long as they are
properly maintained.
2. Furniture or other equipment may be placed on a roof deck or
other similar place that was lawfully designed and created for such
use.
17.17. 070 Fences. All fencing shall be maintained so that fencing
materials and support are structurally sound, with no missing
material.
17.17. 080 Prohibited acts
A. Unlawful acts. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or
corporation that owns, occupies or controls property in the City of
San Luis Obispo to maintain or fail to maintain such property in
violation of this chapter for more than 72 hours.
February 8 (P.C. version)
Property maintenance standards EXHIBIT A
Page 4
B. Type of offense. Any person who violates any provision of
this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. Violations shall be
punishable as set forth in Chapter 1. 12 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or
constituted to prevent the City from commencing any civil
proceeding otherwise authorized by law for the declaration or
abatement of a public nuisance.
17.70.090 Private cause of action
If the owner of any premise fails or neglects to comply with the
provisions of this chapter, it shall constitute a public nuisance,
pursuant to Section 8 .24 . 020 (B) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code. Any aggrieved party may, in addition to any other right or
remedy he or she may possess either at law or in equity, pursue a
private cause of action to abate a public nuisance, as specified in
Section 8.24 . 190 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
February 8 (P.C. Version)
���T
i
■r;
1�
�■A
1 -
\■ ;•
■
Noll
--
\!,
\\;
■r......
■■
on
■■
■■ --------- -------- ------------------------
: ................................... ............. .......................................
%
m���■�■! i��l���aessd■J/
iii ; 1
•
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM S 2
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: February 8, 1995
FILE NUMBER: TA 175-93
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance: Amendments to various regulations to strengthen
property maintenance provisions (a part of the "Neighborhood Enhancement" program).
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council adopt the regulations amendments as proposed or with modifications,
based on the Council making the following findings:
1. The text amendment is consistent with the General Plan, and specifically with policies for residential
area in the Land Use Element.
2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development Department
on December 8, 1994, that describes environmental impacts associated with the text changes. The
Community Development Director, on December 8, 1994, reviewed the environmental initial study
and granted a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation. The initial study
concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and the
City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and finds that the Negative Declaration reflects
the independent judgement of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The City Council directed staff to improve our property maintenance regulations, in response to
concerns by citizens over the years. Staff developed draft regulations, worked with a neighborhood
group, and held a public workshop. In response to comments the draft has been revised several times.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft regulations on January 11, 1995, and
continued it with direction on several items.
Staff has now reviewed the issues raised by public testimony and the Commission, and provided
responses.
The Planning Commission's action will be a recommendation to the City Council.
Data Summary
Address: Citywide
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo (City Council)
Zoning: Regulations affect all zones
General Plan: All Land Use Element designations
Environmental status: Negative declaration with mitigation granted by the Director on December
8, 1994
Project action deadline: No State-mandated deadlines for legislative actions
o
TA 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 2
Project Description
The project is the expansion of existing regulations and streamlining of processing to make it easier for
the City to require maintenance of both commercial and residential property. The expansion includes
the addition of a new chapter to the zoning regulations (chapter 17.17) plus modifications to several
existing code sections. Primary elements of the regulations are:
o • Screening requirement. A requirement that any furniture, large vehicles, boats, trailers, and
various materials, that are stored outside, be screened from public view. "Screening" consists of
a 6'-high fence or hedge, where otherwise allowed.
o Paving limitation. A percentage limit on the amount of paving allowed in front yards.
o Roofing storage limits. A limitation'on what can be placed on roofs.
o Fence maintenance. A requirement that fencing be maintained in good condition.
o Visiting RV limits. A time limit on how long a recreational vehicle may "camp" in a driveway,
while the campers are visiting the residents of the home.
o Prohibition of RV as dwelling. A clarification that the use of recreational vehicles or campers as
permanent dwellings is prohibited, except in campgrounds or mobile home parks.
o Landscape maintenance requirement. A requirement that yards with City-required landscape
plans be maintained in accordance with those plans.
The proposed regulations also include new enforcement provisions, 1) making violations of the
regulations an infraction, and 2) allowing private parties to pursue a private cause of action to remedy
code violations. These provisions are intended to make enforcement simpler and less expensive for the
City.
EVALUATION
1. Enforcement methods. Much public testimony at the January 11 hearing centered on the City's
approach to enforcement. The code defines what is a violation, but City crews do not roam the
streets looking for these violations. To do so would require a much larger workforce than is
possible with the funds available. Therefore, many years ago the City determined that the most
cost-effective way to enforce codes and to focus on those that deserved attention was to act on
the basis of complaints.
The complainant is anonymous to alleviate fears of reprisals. The City may choose to make
complainants' names public knowledge but has not done so. The complaint method is simply
one way for the City to be informed of possible code violations, although it is not the only one.
Action is also taken when other City departments or public agencies note a problem in the
process of doing their jobs. For example, the Fire Department inspects new businesses. On
occasion, that department notes situations that appear to be zoning or building code violations.
Once noted, the department or agency is obligated to follow through. 7
.2'1/
TA 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 3
In addition to the following paragraphs, please refer to the attached memorandum from the City
Attorney's office for additional background on the complaint process.
Specific concerns with this method, raised by citizens and the Commission, are addressed below:
♦ Enforcement is not uniform. The complaint method causes action to be taken on a violation
while a similar violation a block away may be ignored. Enforcement is not uniform, but neither
is it prejudicial or arbitrary. Many types of violations are not enforced uniformly. All persons
who exceed the speed limit on highways do not get tickets. All doctors who are guilty .of
malpractice are not uniformly prosecuted. Although those who live in this city may doubt it,
all vehicles parked overtime do not get parking tickets. The complaint method allows a degree
of enforcement that is usually acceptable to citizens.
♦ Anonymity nits neighbor against neighbor, The complainant is not known to the violator.
The complaint can lead to distrust in the neighborhood, a feeling that there are spies afoot.
Many citizens would prefer to have their neighbors speak with them before resorting to filing
a complaint with a government agency. The City would prefer this method as well, and staff
members routinely recommend it before taking in complaints. In fact, many concerns are
resolved before there is a need to involve the City. If all could be handled without government
interference, this would be a fortunate city indeed. However, some citizens do not get along
with their neighbors. Some will not listen to others in the neighborhood or concern themselves
with what others think. Also, some citizens, because they do not want to injure relations with
their neighbors, are reluctant to speak to them about issues that concern them. They want to
keep peace but they want the problem fixed. These are the cases where the City steps in. City
enforcement officers are paid to be uninvolved, unbiased, unemotional. This impartiality is a
benefit to both the complainant and the alleged violator.
♦ "The accused has the right to know the accuser." A complainant is not an accuser. A
complainant tells the enforcement officer of concerns. The enforcement officer is responsible
for determining if a violation exists. In code enforcement cases, it does not matter who lets the
City know of a problem. In many cases, several persons file complaints, unaware of each other.
If a violation is found, the (21y is the "accuser".
♦ The notification time is too short. Property owners were concerned that .they may not
receive adequate notification of a violation on their rental property, because they may be out of
town or may live in another state. In reality, as explained in the City Attorney memorandum,
attached, property owners will be afforded adequate time to correct violations before their case
comes to court.
♦ Who is really responsible? The Commission asked that staff clarify who was really
responsible for violations. The wording of the text has been amended, as noted in the City
Attorney memorandum, to state that both the property owner and the occupant are responsible,
consistent with other property-related codes.
If the Planning Commission would prefer that complainants not be anonymous, it may
recommend a change in procedure to the City Council, which may choose to change the
established policy. No changes would be required to the Municipal Code. Q
TA 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 4
2. Recreational vehicles, boats, and other large items. Most of the concerns raised by members
of the public involved recreational vehicles (RVs).
RVs in driveways. The draft regulations include a section prohibiting the use of driveways for
storage of RVs and other large vehicles for more than 72 hours. After 72 hours, the object must
be moved off the lot or placed behind a six-foot hedge or fence, where one is otherwise allowed.
Generally, this means the vehicle or other object would be placed behind the street setback (20'
in the two lower-density residential zones), presumably in a side or rear yard. The reason for
this prohibition is that large recreational vehicles; boats, aircraft materials, and similar items
placed in driveways will usually block access to a garage parking space, and because many
citizens find these large items, parked in the same location for long periods, offensive. When
RVs or boats are parked in driveways, residents often park their cars on the street, increasing
parking congestion in the neighborhood.
Many citizens (see minutes, attached) testified that RVs are not offensive to them. One person
even said he felt they are "beautiful". Many newer subdivisions have attached garages and
narrow sideyards, unlike the older neighborhoods where the garages are in the back yard. In
the newer areas, it would be difficult or impossible to move a large object into the rear yard.
Citizens expressed concern with being forced to store these objects in commercial storage areas,
primarily because of the expense.
There was also objection to the screening requirement. The draft regulations say that an object
placed behind a six-foot-high fence or hedge will be considered to be "screened". This provision
is not intended to encourage construction of fences. It is an alternative for a resident who wants
or needs to have some outdoor storage of items on his lot. (See also the discussion below, under
"screening requirement".)
Staff continues to support this code amendment. It should help to relieve some congested areas,
would make it less likely that persons will be living in RV's, and will help eliminate clutter from
neighborhoods. However, if the Planning Commission wants to see some change to the proposal
in this area, staff offers the following alternatives:
♦ Delete the requirement altogether. The Commission may recommend that the
screening requirement be eliminated. This would mean that boats, RV's, aircraft parts
and other large items would continue to be allowed in front yards, on paved or
unpaved areas.
♦ Allow selected items. The County allows recreation vehicles that are "self-propelled"
within the driveway, but allows only one (see County regulations, attached). A
similar provision in the City's code would make our rules consistent with the County's
and would alleviate most of the concerns raised at the January 11 hearing. This kind
of modification would still prohibit boats and similar items from being in the front
yard more than three days. Such a provision would not address the concern with RVs
blocking access to parking spaces, and would still be objectionable to some citizens.
Visitor RVs. The proposed regulations would allow a resident's visitors to park an RV in the
resident's driveway for up to 72 hours. Some citizens objected to this provision, saying that 72
hours is not long enough for a visitor from far away.
�i9
TA 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 5
At this time, the City does not allow visiting RVs to camp in resident driveways at all. The
proposed changes would allow a little leeway. Although making this allowance could lead to
more difficulties in shutting down permanent RV dwellings, the 72-hour limit gives the City
some control. Staff continues to support the 72-hour limit because it is likely to be acceptable
to most residents. Visitors who want to stay longer should make arrangements at a local
campground.
3. Screening requirement. The proposed regulations (see section 17.17.040) say that certain
items, including motorhomes, furniture, and boats, must be screened from public view. In
residential areas, these items will be considered screened if they are behind a six-foot fence or
hedge "where otherwise allowed". Concerns with the six-foot fence or hedge provision were:
♦ A six-foot fence won't hide an I1' RV. True. There was a question about the value of
placing a tall RV behind a six-foot fence. Much of the RV (or large boat) would still be
visible. The lower portion would be hidden, however, and the entire vehicle would be
farther back on the lot than it would likely be if parked in the streeryard driveway. These
two changes should contribute to a pleasing appearance from the street.
♦ Good fences make bad neighbors. Several people spoke against the fence provision, saying
that it is better for the development of neighborhoods to have fewer fences, not more. There
was a further concern that building fences would be inconsistent with recently-adopted
policies in the Land Use Element (LUE).
The intent of the regulations is not to encourage fence-building. The screening provision is
a compromise position between allowing outdoor storage anywhere on a lot and prohibiting
it altogether. If a resident chooses to store things outdoors, the regulations say those things
should be screened from public view. Rather than insist that every item be screened totally,
staff settled on the six-foot rule common to many communities. The compromise allows
residents some flexibility but promotes a neater neighborhood.
The LUE says
2.1.5 Neighborhood Open Links The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks
as a continuous open link between all areas of the city and all land uses. These features
should be designed as amenities for light, air, social contact, and community identity.
and
2.2.12. Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide:
L Design.elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches,front
yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways.
The proposed regulations do not conflict with these provisions. Any six-foot fencing that
is needed to respond to the regulations is expected to be placed beyond the front setback,
even with the entry or farther back. These side and rear yard areas have traditionally been
private areas for residents, which is why so much side- and rear-yard fencing exists now.
Some policies in the LUE support screening:
�-aa
TA 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 6
2.10.2 77?e City will adopt and implement property-maintenance regulations, focused on
proper enclosure of trash, appearance of yards and buildings from the street, and storage
of vehicles. 77?e regulations will be periodically reviewed and updated.
♦ Fences cost money,, Yes they do. Fences won't be necessary unless residents have large
items, which also cost money, that they wish to store on their lots.
4. The patio question. One concern raised at the January 11 meeting and expressed earlier by
representatives of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) was that the screening
requirement would relegate outdoor barbecues and lawn furniture to the backyard after three
days. Homes with front patios would be prevented from having permanent outdoor furniture
in them. The proposed regulations have been modified to address this concern:
l :° : l ceptrons 'The f01owing tray allowed is frc�n yards; uttder.the noted
S<x'$arl3ecues and furnrture that is Bested an mtendfor.QU.tdogr..uq may retna�n to<:a
3r+alled#icrnt pafio where the walls are designed an accordance uth fence hdight-Mglafions
The modification would allow outdoor furniture and barbecues to be located in "walled patios".
The regulations would not specify the height of patio walls, unless the Commission and Council
request it. Persons who do not have patios would still be able to have barbecues and picnics
outdoors, and would have three days to put away the furniture.
5. Agricultural property. One citizen asked if agricultural equipment would be exempt from the
yard regulations. Staff believes it would be exempt under section 17.17.040 D.4, but is
suggesting a small change to the language to make it clearer (addition indicated by underlining):
sept ans Thi f uwu g a be al9otived th front yards wx er the notes,ctscumsta:n
4,: toiage, �reparr,y and maueace. of vla�res nt mer eguigntertt uuay be al9owedu
C4mriie�ct� or agraculturai az�� vtslal� frim! apubhc r3g1Yt-4fway'*;svhern ih�se acttvtties:are
az#:.; � part�� th;e ro�ulterctat bustttess-and are cdnduc �it•accardance �+tth all t►the>E
13mit�tions you that busitressW
The revised proposal, included in the Commission's packet, includes this recommended language
change.
6. The cost of compliance. Some citizens and Commissioners wondered if there were avenues a
resident might follow for financial help in clearing up yard problems. Costs could include labor
for yard cleaning, labor and materials for fences, paint, and rent for commercial storage units
for large items.
The Municipal Code is not designed to address citizens' financial difficulties in complying with
laws. Staff has attempted to write the ordinance language so that compliance will not be
excessively costly. When an enforcement officer is aware of the barrier of financial difficulty,
TA 175.93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 7
he will usually allow a time extension to complete work. Additionally, neighborhood
associations may be able to provide advice or volunteer time to help. Cal Poly fraternities and
sororities frequently volunteer labor for painting, window cleaning, and yard work for citizens
who are financially and physically unable to do such work. The "Neighborhood Enhancement
Program" includes much more than these simple ordinance revisions. It is intended to approach
the enhancement of neighborhoods from several angles. The City's code enforcement officer
will be happy to discuss the bigger picture at the meeting, if requested.
7. Of paving and percentages. Probably the item of second-greatest interest at the January 11
hearing was the proposal to limit paving of yards. The proposed regulations limit paving of
"front yards" (the area between the sidewalk and the nearest residential building wall) to 30%
Several citizens expressed concern that such a regulation would prevent residents from creating
attractive front-yard patios, such as now exist in many areas of the city, and would prevent infill
parking area from being created in older neighborhoods. There were also concerns that this
paving provision conflicted with water-saving policies in the General Plan, because limited
paving could mean more lawn area. The proposed regulations do allow for exceptions to the
30% limit to be granted by the Community Development Director (by a simple, no-cost
process), but do not specify those cases where an exception would be granted.
There is nothing magic about the 30% number. As was pointed out at the hearing, many
smaller lots would have great difficulty staying within 30% just in developing a driveway and
walkway. In recognition of the number of cases that might require exceptions (although existing
paving situations would be exempt), staff is now recommending that the percentage be set at
50%. This percentage should be large enough to allow a comfortable degree of paving on any
lot, yet would still prevent yards from being totally covered with concrete or asphalt. Staff
further recommends that the following language be added to the regulations. The addition would
provide general guidance for the Director in making decisions about when an exception to the
paving requirement should be granted:
now��}}.:....... M.<t!►�::�j}}�til<+MQQu�..../:/yy��...�l.]..
iv'}�/.'.vv.:•iriL:::.iN.::iii:::4:J::.:i:•
M. .
o more tfrari 31}96 , of ani*residentrat front yari3 rna be coves by rxnczete or art}*other
stttvtouS rnaierral,includtng dnveyva�s,paha aza'as, walkways, and other;�andstaje fe2ttii es,e
et�ept�tt��pon wnttea rec(uest, the Director may_allow s'atcepttots to rhzs requirement:of he
cir.sTie ftrrds that the�rnpos� Pavtng wtl1.be �ompatibie wt#h the neiQhfioi�iood
These changes are reflected in the revised proposal attached to this report.
Nonconforming Commissioners asked if existing paving that exceeds the new limits
would be allowed to remain. Because paving is a permanent improvement, paving in excess of
the percentage limit would be considered nonconforming and would be treated as are all other
legal nonconforming improvements: it would be allowed to remain, but would not be allowed
to be expanded. The legal nonconforming status would apply only to paving, however. No
other situation addressed by the proposed regulations would be of a permanent nature.
About water use. There are no policies in the Land Use Element addressing water use, and the
Water and Wastewater Element does not address use of water for front yards. The City's
Water-Efficient Landscape Standards (Chapter 13.20) limit areas to be used for turf, and ��
TA 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 8
encourage the use of decorative paving and alternative ground covers for "pathways, service
areas, or areas difficult to maintain". These regulations also say "Parking lots should be
adequately landscaped to prevent large, uninterrupted expanses of paving." The ordinance
focuses on how plants should be chosen to limit water use. (Most native plants can be
maintained on rain water alone after they are established.) There do not appear to be any
conflicts between the paving restrictions and the General Plan or its implementing ordinances.
8. What about rear yards? Some citizens thought that rear yards would be required to be kept
clear of outdoor storage items. There was both support and opposition to this concept. Staff
prefers to leave rear yards out of the picture for now. The primary issues to be addressed in
this attempt should be those that are clearly visible from public places. Any health or safety
concerns raised by rear yard storage can be addressed by health and safety codes. If, in the
future, there is compelling reason to address rear yard storage of trash or large items, staff will
return with amendments.
9. Aren't the present regulations adequate? Some citizens asked why we are proposing new
regulations in cases where present regulations already exist that address the problems. This
question can be answered in two parts:
♦ The present regulations do not include some provisions. Specifically, the RV parking
and the paving percentage regulations do not appear in any existing codes.
♦ Those regulations that do exist are overly broad or vague, and essentially
unenforceable. The attached "Table 1" illustrates the status of existing codes. In
most cases, the existing code sections were written for general purposes. For example,
the Zoning Regulations say that All yards shall be landscaped or maintained in an
orderly manner. This one sentence has been used to require removal of couches on
lawns, RVs in driveways, airplane parts on porches, and a number of other unsightly
conditions. However, if any such case that goes to court, the code language would
be determined to be overly vague. The attached memorandum from the City
Attorney's office elaborates on these points.
Therefore, the simple answer is no, the present regulations are not adequate. At this time, staff
sees no reason to delete the "offending" sections because they are vague or subject to
interpretation. The number of code sections involved is small and the words few.
10. Private property rights. Some citizens felt that the regulations represent too great an intrusion
by government into private property rights. According to the City Attorney office memorandum
(attached), the courts have consistently held that "a concern for aesthetics and 'character' is a
legitimate governmental objective". There is nothing in the proposed regulations that conflicts
with rights traditionally held by property owners.
11. Maintenance of yards. Some citizens suggested that more attention be given to yard
maintenance. Neighborhood groups have also supported regulations for requiring maintenance
of yards. The proposed regulations require maintenance of yards with "City-approved landscape
plans." A residential yard'will have a City-approved landscape plan if the project was subject
to architectural review by the City (usually only if more than one home is on a lot or if the lot
has been .designated a "sensitive site") or if it is a new home or has undergone major
-.Z3
TA 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 9
remodelling, and a landscape plan was required in accordance with the City's Water-Efficient
Landscape Standards. (Virtually every new home plan is now required to include a landscape
plan.) The concerns voiced by citizens were that the yards likely to be of concern would not
be regulated by this provision. (There was also testimony agains againrequirements for yard
maintenance.)
Staff did not include landscape maintenance in this package because it is a complex issue and
such a requirement would significantly affect the City's enforcement resources. There are many
difficulties in crafting yard maintenance regulations to avoid the need for subjective judgment.
If the Commission wants to see such regulations, it should recommend that the City Council act
on the present proposal and direct staff to return with yard maintenance regulations at a later
date.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may recommend denial of the amendments, if it finds they are not consistent with the
general plan.
The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff.
OTHER DEPART EENT COMMENTS
The Police Department has reviewed the draft regulations and finds that those few cases requiring action
by that department would be enforceable within present staffing limits.
Code enforcement personnel expect complaints to rise initially once the ordinance is passed, but to level
off in time. The revised enforcement techniques will allow these staff members to make more effective
use of their time, to clear a larger number of violations in less time than is presently possible.
Attached:
Property maintenance regulations - revised legislative draft
Environmental initial study
City Attorney office memorandum
Table 1: status of existing codes
Minutes of January 11 PC meeting
County regulations: RVs in driveways
Letters from citizens received after January 11
city of San lues OBISp0
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION Citywide APPLICATION NO. 17593
PROJECT DESCRIPTION property maintenance regulations: Amendments to the Zoning Regulations and Other codes to
expand existing regWations and streamline processing, to allow the City to obtain a degree of maintenance of private
commercial and residential property.
APPLICANT CIty Council
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Judith Lautner, Associate Planner DATE December 8, 1994
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 12j0/ 9a'
V
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
NONE*
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...............................................•••' NONE
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..........................................
NONE
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
NONE
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
NONE*
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................
NONE
F. UTILITIES........................................................................
NONE
G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................... NONE
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NONh
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... NONE
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NONE
KPLANT LIFE ......................................................................
L ANIMAL LIFE.....................................................................
NONE
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ...................................................
NONE-
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... NONE
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ...........................................................
P. OTHER ..........................................................................
ft4&fffffATRKTION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT W415
ER 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is the expansion of existing regulations and streamlining of processing to make it
easier for the City to obtain some degree of maintenance of both commercial and residential
property. The expansion includes the addition of a new chapter to the zoning regulations
(chapter 17.17) plus modifications to several existing code sections. Primary elements of the
regulations are:
o Screening requirement. A requirement that any furniture, large vehicles,boats, trailers,
and various materials, that are stored outside, be screened from public view.
"Screening" consists of a 6'-high fence or hedge, where otherwise allowed.
o Paving limitation. A percentage limit on the amount of paving allowed in front yards.
o Roofing storage limits. A limitation on what can be placed on roofs.
o Fence maintenance. A requirement that fencing be maintained in good condition.
o Visiting RV limits. A time limit on how long a recreational vehicle may "camp" in a
driveway, while the campers are visiting the residents of the home.
O Prohibition of RV as dwelling. A clarification that the use of recreational vehicles or
campers as permanent dwellings is prohibited, except in campgrounds or mobile home
parks-
0 Landscape maintenance requirement. A requirement that yards with City-required
landscape plans be maintained in accordance with those plans.
The proposed regulations also include new enforcement provisions, 1) making violations of the
regulations an infraction, and 2) allowing private parties to pursue a private cause of action to
remedy code violations. These provisions are intended to make enforcement simpler and less
expensive for the City.
ER 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 2
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Community Plans and Goals
Land use element:
Land Use Element goals include:
2& Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to live...
29. Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a
neighborhood pattern.
36. Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle,for recreation and other
daily activities.
These general goals are further developed in the programs. Section 2.10 in the Land Use
Element lists these programs:
2.10 Updating & Enforcing Standards
2.10.1 The City will review, revue if deemed desirable, and enforce noise,parking, and
property-development and property -maintenance standards. Staff to adequately enforce
these standards will be provided.
2.10.2 The City will adopt and implement property-maintenance regulations,focused on
proper enclosure of trash, appearance of yards and buildings from the street, and storage
of vehicles. The regulations will be periodically reviewed and updated.
Conclusion: Not significant. The proposed standards implement a part of the above
programs and are therefore consistent with Land Use Element.
Public Services
The adoption of new property maintenance standards and enforcement procedures may result in
increased enforcement activity. This could affect the City's ability to provide response to
complaints in a timely manner.
Presently, the City receives between one and two complaints per day (between 300 and 350 per
year). This number is expected to surge upon adoption of property maintenance standards.
Over time, as violations are corrected, the complaints should level off, but it is not possible to
predict if the numbers will return to the present levels or remain at a higher level.
ER 175-93
Property Maintenance Regulations
Page 3
New enforcement provisions, also included in the proposal, would allow complaints to be settled
in less time, with fewer steps. This means that less of the code enforcement officer's time
would be spent on each enforcement action than is possible at present. It is possible that the
time saved on enforcement actions would be sufficient to allow adequate response to a larger
number of complaints.
Whether or not the new regulations would affect the code officer's ability to respond, the Land
Use Element says (as noted above):
Staff to adequately enforce these standards will be provided.
This statement indicates the Council's commitment to an effective property maintenance
program, including a willingness to provide additional staff if needed. Although response to the
initial surge in complaints is expected to be slower than presently, eventually this condition will
be corrected.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Aesthetics
The proposed regulations would result in some physical changes to neighborhoods in all parts
of the city. These changes would be of a minor nature, including the construction of fencing,
the removal of vehicles and materials from yards, and removal of items from roofs. The
changes would not affect views of public vistas, nor would they have a deleterious effect on
hillsides, riparian areas, tree groves, or significant buildings. The regulations are expected to
enhance the appearance of neighborhoods and buildings.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Other impacts
The proposed regulations are not expected to have significant impacts on any other aspect of the
environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact.
-Minutes
Planning Commission
January 11, 1995
Page 8
Commr. Cross moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan and
Zoning Map amendment changing 3 lots from medium-density residential (R-2) to
medium-high-density residential (R-3), based on the following findings:
1. The map amendments are consistent with the General Plan and specifically with
policies for residential areas in the Land Use Element.
2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community
Development Department on December 8; 1994, that describes environmental
impacts associated with the text changes. The Community Development Director,
on December 8, 1994, reviewed the environmental .initial study and granted a
Negative Declaration of environmental impact. The initial study concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and the City
Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and finds that the Negative
Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City Council.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Cross, Senn, Whittlesey, Karleskint, Hoffman, D.
Williams,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
Chairman Karleskint called for a 15 minute recess. He reconvened the meeting at 8:45
p.m.
Item 4. City-Wide: Text amendment to expand existing property maintenance
regulations; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant (TA 175-93)
Chairman Karleskint clarified the reason for the application, saying that regulation
changes were partly in response to Commission direction to go through City documents
to clarify policy and group similar items together. He said that some of the items in the
ordinance are already on the books, but may not be easily understood and some of the
items are not currently in the City municipal code.
Ron Whisenand began the staff presentation by saying that the ordinance is not new.
Work on changes was started about two years ago and the proposal was created after
hearing from neighborhood groups. Staff also wanted to have a more efficient process
to deal with blighted neighborhood conditions. The City Council gave the regulations
Minutes
Planning Commission
January 11, 1995
Page 9
changes a high priority rating.
He explained how the ordinance would be presented by the various staff-members.
Rob Bryn gave a slide presentation to clarify which types of situations would be
addressed by the text amendments and pointed-out the difficulty of enforcing certain.
violations because of the ambiguous language that currently exists.
Judith Lautner presented the staff report, outlining what the changes would include.
She explained that the enforcement provisions have been simplified, allowing the City to
obtain compliance more simply and cheaply and involving the property owner in a less
onerous procedure than he presently would have to go through. She said that the only
completely new provisions are the screening requirement-for recreational vehicles and
other large objects and the yard paving limitation. She recommended that the
Commission hear citizen concerns at the meeting and -determine if-any changes are
needed to the proposed regulations. If the changes could be simply understood, she
recommended that the Commission move to recommend approval-with those changes.
If additional study is needed then staff would recommend a continuance.
Rob Bryn explained the current enforcement process, suggesting that the proposed
ordinance will make the process faster and easier to understand.
Cindy Clemens clarified that the 72-hour grace period was chosen to allow people to do
things in their front yards that historically have b.een-accepted as contemporary uses of
a front yard area, such as have a barbecue. Tha City,did- not want these uses to be - -
considered violations. She also clarified that current regulations are not clear enough to
pass criminal tests. Regulations need to be clear and unambiguous to survive- a
challenge.
Ron Whisenand explained that the City held workshops on the proposal and tried to get
as much public comment as possible.
Rob Bryn, responding to a number of questions from the Commission, listed the types
and numbers of complaints received by his Zoning Enforcement office.
Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing.
Evelyn Talmadge, 2413 Broad, spoke about the complaint procedure. She was concerned
that the complaints against her were anonymous. She felt the person with the complaint
lodged against them should be allowed to know who the complainant is. She appreciated
the concerns of neighborhood groups but noted that many people are alone and on fixed
incomes and do not always have the means to correct the violations.
Ray Nordquist, 750 Pasatiempo, Chairman of Residents for Duality Neighborhoods,
—3C)
Minutes
Planning Commission
January 11, 1995
Page 10
supported the ordinance. He wanted the Commission and Council to look at solutions
for people who have violations on their property but are physically or financially unable
to correct the situation. He felt Anaheim's "Paint Your Heart Out" program could serve
as a !r gdel. solution to part of the problem.
77, Stan Payne, 1420 Johnson, said he was leery of City committees, after his experience
with the bicycle committee. He was concerned about any ordinance limiting personal
property rights and he said the constitution gives everyone the right to know their
' accusers.
Kim Brown, 651 ' Bekiolara, representing the Brizzolara-Nipomo Neighborhood
Association, expressed support for the proposed ordinance.
-= � Lois Lucien, 1358 Peach St, said that there are people in the community who can not
=.. afford to beautify their.property. She also asked what made the top 5' of a motor home
j. less unsightly than. the; that you cover up with screening.
Gregg Martin, 363 High St, said he keeps a boat and a motor home in his driveway and
,F .v
it is not the place of any government agency to dictate what can be stored on the
property, so long as it is not a safety or health concern. He suggested that the proposed
ordinance is too restrictive for property owners. He supported the intent of the ordinance
to keep the City beautiful, but not the restrictions on the motor homes and boats.
Susan Coward, 483 Sandercock, said it is important to her to be a part of her
neighborhood, but that different neighborhoods have different standards. She suggested
that the Commission work to remove the barriers between neighbors, not build barriers.
Vicky Jansen, 1035 Peach Street, representing the Agricultural Task Force, asked if the
intent of the ordinance is to include agricultural property. She suggested that if it does
not specifically include agricultural property perhaps such property could be included in
the exceptions.
Ernest Tripke, 3477 Sequoia, said he objected to the equating of-junk in people's yards
to R.V.'s. He owns an R.V. and has never had a complaint in over 20 years of having
it parked in his driveway.
Bonnie Garritano, 1950 San Luis Dr, supported the ordinance because some neighbors
do not respond to requests by neighbors. She thought perhaps some work needs to be
done on the R.V. and boat issue.
Ester Rowntree, 808 Murray, said that unless the City is willing to enforce the ordinance
uniformly that it should be very cautious in passing it. She felt that the 30% paving limit
was quite arbitrary. She suggested encouraging the use of alternative lawn substitutes,
or encourage only natural vegetation. She also suggested that if a friend wanted to visit
her and park an R.V. in her driveway for more than three days she would not want to
Minutes
Planning Commission
January 11, 1995
Page 11
have to tell them that the City said they could only visit for three days. She also said that
out-of-town property owners would not even get a notice of violation in the three day
period allowed to clean up the violation. She asked that the Commission consider the
physical condition and financial ability of the property owner. She also suggested that the
six foot screening fence would inhibit the Neighborhood Watch program view of the
neighbor's property.
Mrs. Ken Wriaht, 400 Foothill Blvd, said the absentee-landlord who owns a lot adjacent
to hers is oblivious and unresponsive to concems about the blight that is on her property.
Mrs. Wright would appreciate some relief from this situation. She suggested that the City
be specific about where debris can go so that it does not end up being disposed of along
County roads and dumped into creeks.
Kenneth Gilliam, 1748 Lee Ann Court, said he put a paved driveway along the side of his
house, and parks his motorhome there. He said a 6' fence will not screen his 11'-tall
motor home. He said he feels motorhomes are beautiful.
Ron Whisenand clarified that "screening" means putting the object behind a 6' fence or
solid hedge. The object would still be seen, but it would be screened per City
requirements.
Don Coats, 1751 Sydney, said that the laws already on the books will handle every
problem that this ordinance covers. He felt that the government already has too many
ordinances that are unenforceable.
Beverly Hansen, 1620 Lima Drive, said that the existing ordinances can handle the
problems. She objected to the R.V. parking restriction.
Annie Liss, 4239 Poinsettia, said she had a problem with the 72-hour notice as a rental
property owner. She said she often spends 2-3 weeks out of town or out of the country
working. She explained that she would not get the notice of violation until the cost was
astronomical.
Charlie Andrews, 212 Albert Drive, asked about non-permitted fencing, property line fence
maintenance, front yard paving surface materials, yard maintenance requirements, and
grandfathering of existing situations. He asked how the City proposes to achieve
compliance on a reasonable basis. He suggested that it would make enforcement
simpler and less expensive for the City to take the already identified code sections and
with a single amendment change them from misdemeanors to infractions. He favored the
complainant should be identified to the property owner upon request. He recommended
denial or continuance of the amendments.
Pat Dempsey, 133 La Entrada, said he thinks the City brought. on some of the yard
maintenance problems by raising the water rates multiple times. He said that he has a
nice looking yard with an R.V. parked in front of it. He said he owns some rental property
Minutes
Planning Commission
January 11, 1995
Page 12
and some renters can't afford to water lawns.
Arlene Zanchuck, 26 Chorro St, member of RON, said that she concurs with Ray
Nordquist and Bonnie Garraitano and supports the proposed ordinance.
Larry Wright, 515 Lawrence Dr, said that the proposal is a good example of the
government taking away the rights of an individual. He said that for convenience and
economy many people park their recreational vehicles and boats at their homes and use
small pick-up mounted campers for daily transportation. He said that he agreed with the
basic intent of the proposal but considered it too restrictive and felt it would pit neighbor
against neighbor.
Mac McCullar, 2907 Johnson, said that he has an R.V. that is 1IV, tall, and wondered
how a fence could cover that. He said that his property is 285' deep, the R.V. is parked
in the back but you can see it from the street. He wondered how the City is going to
address those kinds of situations. He also said that the City cut back his water, so his
lawn died and he would be appreciative if the City would re-plant his lawn, in which case
he would be happy to take care of it.
Tom Kay, 369 Chaplin, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance as a simplification of the
ordinances already on the books. He mentioned that sometimes there are neighbors that
are too polite to mention their objection to R.V.'s parking on their neighbor's property. He
said that when he was collecting signatures for a parking district, many elderly persons
were afraid to sign because of possible repercussions. He said many people have
objected to ordinance provisions but don't live near problem neighbors.
Roy Hanff, 569 Lawrence, said paving limits should be a minimum of 50-60%. He
thought that 72 hours is ridiculous for RV camping. If his friends from the East Coast
were to visit they would stay for two to three weeks.
Tim Farrell, 61 Broad St, asked about yard coverage requirements. He wondered about
the 30% residential yard coverage limit when there are new buildings on sub-standard
lots. Lautner responded that the 30% recommendation is for paving in front yards only.
John Enos, 625 Cuesta, said that he has an R.V. in his front yard and he suggested that
for every R.V. that is considered detrimental to the neighborhood he could find ten front
yards that are miserably overgrown with vegetation. He suggested that the emphasis
should be on yard clean up and less on running the R.V.'s out of town.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
Commr. Senn suggested that the Commission address each issue, one by one, beginning
with the infraction concept.
Chairman Karleskint asked that the Commission make up a list of issues that need to be
Minutes
Planning Commission
January 11, 1995
Page 13
clarified, defined and discussed.
The Commission presented the list of items to discuss:
Commr. Whittlesey:
-Anonymity of complainants
•R.V. Parking
-Agricultural property restrictions
-Affordability aspect of compliance
-Foster communication between neighbors
-Is the proposed ordinance needed at all
Commr. Senn:
-Paving limits vs City water policies
-Adequate notification
-Grandfathering provisions
-Fences-good or bad in terms of public safety
-Paving restriction on infill lots
-Definition of roof equipment
-Yard maintenance as an incentive program
-Alternative dispute resolution
Commr. Karleskint:
-The 72 hour limit
-Definitions for front yard, impervious, landscape
structures, fencing and screening
-Adding landscape maintenance to ordinance
Commr. Hoffman:
-How to grant exceptions to standards
-Modifying existing ordinance language. or making old
sections disappear
-Status of legally installed residential dump stations
-Clarification of a dwelling unit as opposed to an R.V.
-Clarification of who exactly is responsible for violations
Commr. Cross:
•A way to allow more than 72 hrs.
�.3,el
Minutes
Planning Commission
January 11, 1995
Page 14
-Uniform enforcement
-Clarify where the front yard is in relation to the driveway.
Commr. Williams:
-Private property rights
Cindy Clemens, addressing the property rights issue, said she would provide case laws
to define the contours of the city's powers.
Commr. Karleskint suggested that staff come back to the Commission with analysis of
each of the above listed items for further Commission discussion and action.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to continue Item 94 to the Planning Commission meeting of
February 8, 1995, for further Commission discussion and action. Commr. Cross
seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Whittlesey, Cross, Hoffman, Karleskint, Williams,
Senn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
Item S. STAFF COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Ron Whisenand noted that the Parks and Recreation Element was on the agenda for
January 25, 1995. He reminded the Commission that they have a memo from John
Mandeville concerning upcoming work programs for his division, specifically the Parks
and Rec. Element.
Commr. Senn asked for a copy of the memo of budget priorities that will be going to the
City Council from the Commission.
Item S. COMMISSION COMMENT & DISCUSSION
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 8, 1995
Page 3
Item 2. CU-Wide: Neighborhood Enhancement Text Amendment (TA 175-93).
Continued discussion of amendments to various regulations to strengthen
property maintenance provisions. The public hearing was closed during the
January 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant.
Judith Lautner presented the staff report, recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance as revised by staff or with
additional modifications, based on the following findings:
1. The text amendment is consistent with the General Plan and specifically with
policies for residential ares in the Land Use Element.
2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community
Development Department on December 8, 1994, that describes environmental
impacts associated with the text changes. The Community Development Director,
on December 8, 1994, reviewed the environmental initial study and granted a
Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation. The initial study
concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and
finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City
Council.
Commr. Whittlesey asked why the proposal limits the R.V. campers to 72 hours. Judy
Lautner said the City was concerned that some campers would stay too long which would
make it difficult for enforcement officers to distinguish visitors from persons living
permanently in R.Ws. She noted the aesthetic concern as well.
She noted that it is legal to construct a dump station on residential property with the
proper permits, but use of such a clean-out would cause the R.V.to be too easily
converted into permanent living space.
Commr. Hoffman suggested striking a portion of Section C 3, leaving in place the aircraft
and special mobile equipment. He said he was leaning in favor of parking in driveways.
He suggested that no matter what is parked in the driveway, a parking space in the
garage has been provided as required but the City does not have a requirement that the
garage space be available for parking. He suggested that there would not a loss of
parking spaces because an R.V. was parked in the driveway.
Commr. Cross said that when an R.V., boat and other items are parked in the driveway
there are fewer parking spaces for regular vehicles,-which means more vehicles park on
the street. He suggested that if the resident of the property maintains the required
parking, the large items could be placed in additional spaces in the front yard if they are
a-3�
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 81 1995
Page 4
registered or licensed.
Commr. Senn suggested the Planning Commission first decide if they concur with current
methods of enforcement. He suggested the Commission then act by consensus on each
of the issues raised at the previous meeting..
Commr. Senn moved to accept the staffs recommendation to retain the complaint-driven
enforcement process.
Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion.
The Planning Commission agreed by consensus.
Ron Whisenand clarified the four alternatives to prohibiting long-term RV parking in front
yards:
1. delete the requirement altogether, allowing R.V.s boats, and other items to be
stored in driveways;
2. allow only selected items such as self-propelled vehicles in the driveway;
3. allow R.V.s to be parked in the driveway;
4. allow large vehicles to be parked in the driveway provided the required parking
spaces are always available for the residential use.
Rob Bryn answered Commissioners' questions about County RV parking regulations and
discussed the number of complaints received last year concerning R.V.'s.
Judith Lautner clarified that the number of complaints received does not represent the
extent of concern. Planners do not normally accept complaints about R.V.s because it
is not presently illegal to park an R.V. in a residential driveway.
Ron Whisenand said that the Case family submitted a letter and photographs to staff.
The majority of the photographs show landscape maintenance problems but there are a
series showing R.V.'s. He submitted the.photographs to the Commissioners.
Commr. Cross said that he would like to see the driveway parking area available for
vehicle parking even if the driveway doesn't quality as a required parking area. He
thought a covered area next to the driveway could be used for the storage of the large
items being mentioned. He felt it is acceptable to pave in the area between the fence and
the driveway for R.V. parking, as he has seen many examples of this throughout the City.
He also suggested that the large vehicle be required to be currently licensed or
registered, and noting the difference between front yard and driveway.
02-37
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 8, 1995
Page 5
Cindy Clemens said that presently vehicle parking spaces can not be in the front yard,
so that if some pad were to be created in the front yard to park R.V.'s that would be
against the current ordinances.
Commr. Hoffman suggested deleting the screening requirements, but the other
requirements for parking would have to be met.
Commr. Senn said he did not support prohibiting R.V.s from parking areas, which is what
a driveway is. He said he did not support the screening requirement. He felt that to
homogenize the city is not a good idea and not realistic. He also suggested that
individual perception varies from issue to issue. He suggested throwing out the R.V.
restrictions until the R.V. owners and the RQN find a reasonable way to deal with the
issue. He said he would not support any ordinance restricting R.V. usage or R.V.
parking.
Commr. Williams said that just because an issue is difficult does not mean the issue is out
of the purview of the Planning Commission. If. we eliminate the R.V. proposal just
because it is problematic, the concern will not go away and it may arise in some other
neighborhood conflict. The issue could come back to the Planning Commission and the
City Council in a more pernicious form. If it were not a difficult item it would not be before
the Commission and ultimately the City Council. He said the Commission should be less
willing to walk away from the issue because they can not find a clear path to the solution.
Commr. Senn said he was not suggesting that the Commission walk away from the issue,
but the Commission is trying to pass a property maintenance ordinance and some parts
of the proposed ordinance are appropriate but the R.V. part is not. He said there is
nothing prohibiting the Commission from dealing with the R.V. issue at any time in the
future.
Commr. Hoffman made a motion to delete Section C 3 in its entirety.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
Commr. Senn withdrew his second stating that he did not support the screening and
fencing of items.
Ron Whisenand clarified that 6' fences are not permitted in street yards so the screening
requirement forces large items to be moved back 20' from the front property line, in order
to accommodate the required 6' fence.
Commr. Hoffman suggested that if the item being stored were only four feet tall, that it
should only be necessary to build a four foot fence.
Judith Lautner suggested an addition to Section 17.17.040: Objects will be considered
�-38
draft
Minutes
Planning Commissio,
February 8, 1995
Page 6
"screened" when they are "either 1. not visible from a public right of way or 2." behind a
solid six-foot-high fence, wall...
Commr. Hoffman made a motion to delete section C 3 (page 2) and add the following
language to Section 17.17.040 "Objects will be considered screened when they are either
1.) not visible from a public right of way or 2.) behind a solid six-foot-high fence, wall, or
hedge where such fence, wall or hedge is otherwise permitted by zoning and building
codes.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
Cindy Clemens clarified that the language in the proposed motion would permit someone
to have a camper shell, which does not have wheels, sitting in a residential front yard
forever.
Ron Whisenand suggested if the Commission wanted to address that issue, they could
modify section C 3, leaving boats and trailers out, just saying camper shells or any parts
of recreational vehicles would still require screening. He also reiterated that from a zoning
perspective front yard includes the driveway.
Commr. Kourakis suggested simply dropping the words "recreational vehicles" from
section C 3.
Judith Lautner suggested adding Recreation Vehicles to the Exceptions (D) for
clarification.
Commr. Cross said he would not be supporting the motion because of the problem of
parking on the street. He suggested that along with other existing parking issues,
allowing parking R.Ws in driveways could eventually result in parking districts throughout
the City.
Commr. Hoffman suggested that not allowing the parking of vehicles registered for use
on the highway is going too far. He asked the Commission to make a distinction between
a boat on a trailer, registered and licensed and a boat alone or on blocks in the yard.
Commr. Hoffman withdrew his motion.
Commr. Whittlesey suggested allowing an exception for R.V.s parked in driveways and
leaving section C 3 intact.
Commr. Hoffman made a motion to add the following language to Section 17.17.040
°Objects will be considered screened when they are either 1.) not visible from a gublic
right of way or 2.) behind a solid six-foot-high fence, wall, or hedge where such fence,
wall or hedge is otherwise permitted by zoning and building codes"
draf t
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 8, 1995
Page 7
and
change Section 3 to read:
°Boats not on trailers, camper shells, jet skis not on trailers, or similar devices, or parts
of any of these items."
Commr. Senn seconded the motion
Commr. Senn suggested adding "properly licensed and registered trailers, recreational
vehicles and similar vehicles."
Cindy Clemens suggested keeping C. 3. the way it is written in the draft and in the
exceptions add "R.V.s and trailers that are currently licensed."
Commr. Senn withdrew the motion.
Rob Bryn explained that many complaints have to do with storing inappropriate items in
the yard as opposed to parking assorted vehicles in the driveway. He said he thought
that the Commission was on the right track with insisting that vehicles be licensed or
registered.
Commr. Cross said that the way section D. reads right now the City is allowing vehicles
to be placed in the front yard, which is any area between the property line and the front
of the residence.
Commr. Karleskint suggested adding "only on the driveway".
Ron Whisenand clarified that other items are allowed in the front yard, but if an exception
is provided for R.V.s it should stipulate that they can only be parked in the driveway. The
driveway is part of the front yard, and the exception would allow R.V.s in the front yard
if they are in the driveway.
Commr. Hoffman suggested adding "a currently licensed motor vehicle or trailer in the .
driveway", to the exceptions leaving Section C 3 intact.
Commr. Hoffman moved to add the following language to Section 17.17.040:
"Objects will be considered screened when they are either 1.1 not visible from a public
right of way or 2.1 behind a solid six-foot-high fence, wall, or hedge where such fence,
wall or hedge is otherwise permitted by zoning and building codes.
and
to add the following to the list of exceptions:
� - ya
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 8, 1995
Page 8
6. Recreational vehicles and trailers with current licenses may be parked in driveways.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
Commr. Cross said he would not support She motion because of the potential to block
required parking when recreational vehicles are parked in the driveway.
Commr. Whittlesey said that she will not be supporting the motion for the reason stated
by Commr. Cross and the impact on street parking.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Hoffman, Senn, Kourakis, Karleskint, Williams,
NOES: Commr. Whittlesey, Cross
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
The Chairperson called for a 10 minute recess. He reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Chairman Karleskint asked for Commission comments on screening requirements.
Commr. Cross said he is opposed to fences in general.
The Commission agreed that they did not need to discuss screening requirements.
Chairman Karleskint asked for Commission comments on front yard patios with outdoor
furniture on them.
Cindy Clemens reminded the Commission that she wants to have an enforceable code.
Saying that outdoor furniture is allowed anywhere in the front yard would allow the blight
of rusted old beach chairs in the front yard.
Rob Bryn said the City does receive numerous complaints of debris in the yard, which is
one of the areas this part of the ordinance addresses.
Commr. Senn said he trusts Mr. Bryn's discretion, but was concerned that the population
being impacted by this issue would be the poor people, who cannot afford to purchase
really nice lawn furniture.
Cindy Clemens said that any kind of outdoor furniture would be allowed inside any patio
in the front yard that is walled, with a height not specified in the ordinance.
Commr. Kourakis suggested that the proposal does not allow outdoor furniture on
porches.
2 y/
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 8, 1995
Page 9
Rob Bryn clarified the ordinance and Ron Whisenand suggested changing the language
to read:
D. Exceptions. The following may be allowed in front yards under the noted
circumstances;
5. Barbecues and furniture that is designed and intended for outdoor use may remain on
a porch or in a walled front patio where the walls are designed in accordance with fence
height regulations.
The Commission agreed by consensus to accept Section D. 5 as amended.
Chairman Karleskint asked for any Commission comments on agricultural property.
The Commission agreed by consensus to accept Section D. 5. as written.
Chairman Karleskint asked for any Commission comments on the issue of 'the cost of
compliance°.
The Commission, by consensus, agreed that the staff report adequately addressed the
issue.
Chairman Kadeskint asked for any Commission comments on front yard paving.
Rob Bryn cited cases where people wanted to pave their whole front yard with the intent
to use the whole front yard as a parking lot.
Commr. Williams asked whether because of slope or size of the lot or disappointment in
trying to maintain it a property owner simply paved his front yard the ordinance would
address this type of issue.
Rob Bryn said that the Director's exception could be used in circumstances in which an
unusual slope or lot existed. He also said that in one of the public meetings that were
held on this ordinance a landscape architect indicated that one could design an
outstanding yard with concrete paving, greenery and block.
Commr. Cross said that they are trying to write a regulation that addresses every paving
situation in the city. Some properties may be acceptable with 50% paving coverage and
some may not be acceptable. He said he has a problem with allowing this without
specifically addressing driveways,the problem being someone putting a°pad"in and then
storing something on it which is out of character with the neighborhood.
Commr. Senn agreed with Commr. Cross that some people have small yards which they
do not want to maintain so they cover them with brick or rock with plantings of trees and
shrubs and he thinks they ought to be able to do so without coming in and getting an
e2 -�z
draf t
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 8, 1995
Page 10
exception.
Judah Lautner said that rock is not an impervious material and therefore would not be
considered paving. She said that staff has not fully determined which materials would be
considered impervious and which would not.
Ron Whisenand said that there may be times that it could be found that it would be
appropriate and aesthetically pleasing to pave the whole front yard which is why the
exception process exists. The idea is to pick a reasonable percentage since nobody
wants to see whole front yards paved with asphalt or concrete.
Commr. Cross asked, with the current lot size of 6,000 square feet, if there is a walkway
and driveway, what percentage of the front yard is paved?
Ron Whisenand figured that if the lot is 50' wide, with a 20' wide driveway and a 5' wide
walkway, the coverage is 50%.
Commr. Kourakis said she would support the 50% paving coverage proposed in the draft
ordinance.
Commr. Karleskint agreed with Commr. Kourakis.
Commr. Whittlesey said she would support 30% paving coverage.
Commr. Cross said he did not feel that he had enough information, and said he was not
happy with 50%, but might support 30%.
Commr. Senn said he thought 50% was a number that was picked arbitrarily and the
reality is that once the ordinance is printed he foresees a huge problem.
Commr. Williams said he is inclined to support 30% but might support 50%. He said that
50% seemed like a lot since there are so many small lots in the city.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to limit front yard paving to 30%
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
The Commission agreed by consensus to accept the motion.
Chairman Karleskint asked for Commission comments on rear yard maintenance.
Commr. Kourakis asked who would enforce health and safety violations in rear yards.
Rob Bryn said they would be handled by the City in coordinationf with other agencies
depending on the extent of the violation.
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 8, 1995
Page 11
The Commission agreed by consensus to accept the staff report reasoning against
addressing rear-yards at this time.
Chairman Karleskint asked for Commission comments on the adequacy of present
regulations.
The Commission accepted the staff report's determination that present codes are not
adequate.
Commr. Karleskint asked for Commission comments on private property rights.
The Commission accepted by consensus the staff report explanation, which said that
property maintenance regulations are an acceptable exercise of a city's police power.
Commr. Karleskint asked for Commission comments on maintenance of yards.
Commr. Cross suggested that there are areas that should be addressed.
Commr. Karleskint suggested that the Commission take staffs suggestion to see how the
City does with increased enforcement of weed abatement provisions. Additional
regulations can be considered later, if necessary.
The Commission agreed by consensus to leave yard maintenance out of consideration
at this time.
Commr. Cross expressed his concern about the exception that would allow vehicles to
be washed or maintained yards. He suggested that people who park in their yards might
insist that the cars are parked there to be washed, and the cars will remain for many
hours past the time it takes to finish the project.
Rob Bryn explained that there would be enforcement options to either use this ordinance
or use abatement procedures and tow the vehicle away. He suggested that this
ordinance would be the better option.
Judith Lautner suggested that the wording be adjusted to require vehicles to be parked
in the driveway while they are being serviced.
Cindy Clemens clarified that if the enforcement officer comes out and sees the vehicle
being washed or serviced, the officer can say, "I am going to come here in 72 hours and
if you are still washing or servicing it, then you are in violation."
Commr. Karleskint asked if the Commission wanted to leave the section as it is written.
The Commission agreed by consensus to leave the section as it is written.
draf t
Minutes
Planning commission
February 8, 1995
Page 12
Commr. Senn addressed the 30% paving coverage recommendation adopted earlier in
the evening, suggesting that with a 50 foot lot, a resident could not have a two car
garage. He explained that every new house would have to ask for an exception. He
suggested if the Commission wanted to be more restrictive that the percentage should
be 40% which provides enough space for a driveway to a two car garage.
Judith Lautner and Ron Whisenand concurred that Commr. Senn had a good point and
that 40% should be the first step to take.
Commr. Whittlesey said she would agree to 40% to alleviate the problems that Commr.
Senn pointed out.
Cindy Clemens suggested 50% for ease of enforcement.
Commr. Whittlesey said she could not agree to 50%.
Commr. Senn suggested leaving the number blank and asking the Building Division to
give a recommendation.
Rob Bryn said that the Building Division recommendation was 50% based on ease of
enforcement.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to change Section 17.17.050 to limit paving to 40%.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
Commr. Karleskint said he preferred 50%.
Commr. Kourakis said that any enforcement requires measuring so she will support the
40% paving coverage.
Ron Whisenand suggested as justification forwarded to the City Council, 40% of a 50'
wide lot allows for a 16' wide driveway with a 4' wide walkway.
The Commission agreed by consensus to accept the motion.
Commr. Cross asked if housing codes can be used to deal with fences.
Rob Bryn said the code sections that address dilapidated property do not address fence
maintenance unless the fence was built with a building permit or was an integral part of
the structure. He said the proposed Section 17.17.070 would specifically address fence
maintenance issues.
Chairman Karleskint asked for Commission comments on the 72 hour time limit for
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
February a, 1995
Page 13
camping in visiting R.V.'s in driveways.
Commr. Cross suggested that the City set a time limit and after that time a permit would
be required to continue camping in the driveway.
Rob Bryn clarified that this time limit is not for storage of the vehicle, but for using the R.V.
as housing. He said that 72 hours is a common time period used in many codes. He
also said that the reference in the proposal to assigned parking spaces is to high-density
zones where apartments are allowed and where tenants are assigned parking spaces for
their own use. He said that the Water Division would prefer that R.V. owners not use
hoses to dump sewage into a residential clean-out, but if they absolutely had to dump at
their residence the preferred action would be to get a building permit and put in a clean-
out dump station for the R.V.
Commr. Senn suggested that heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units ought to be
added to the list of allowable items allowed on roofs.
Cindy Clemens suggested some changes to address some of the issues which have
already been discussed. She said that the City needs to be careful not to create a
conflict with the existing ordinance that says it is illegal to park in the front yard. If
someone is washing or unloading their car in the front yard, it is not considered parking
from an enforcement stand point. She suggested changing the proposed sentence to
read:
"Personal property owned or rented by the occupants may be repaired, washed, cleaned
and services, subject to any other relevant regulations, provided all work is completed in
the driveway within 72 hours.°
Judy Lautner asked If staff could work on the wording, because not all items to be
serviced are vehicles.
The Commission agreed by consensus to allow staff to work on the language for Section
D. 3.
Chairman Karleskint asked for Commission comments on using for residences.
Commissioners had no comments.
Chairman Karleskint asked for Commission comments on yard standards. Questions
about residents' ability to change approved landscaping were answered by Ron
Whisenand.
Commr. Senn volunteered to meet with staff for review revisions to the ordinance
approved by the Planning Commission, and report back to the Commission so the
ordinance does not have to go back to the Commission prior to going to the City Council.
draft
Minutes
Planning Commission
February 8, 1995
Page 14
Commr. Whittlesey moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the regulations
as amended by the Planning Commission based on the following findings.
1. The text amendment is consistent with the General Plan and specifically with
policies for residential ares in the Land Use Element.
2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community
Development Department on December 8, 1994, that describes environmental
impacts associated with the text changes. The Community Development Director,
on December 8, 1994, reviewed the environmental initial study and granted a
Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation. The initial study
concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and
finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City
Council.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Whittlesey, Senn, Kourakis, Hoffman, Karleskint,
Williams
NOES: Commr. Cross
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
Ron Whisenand said the ordinance was tentatively on the City Council draft agenda for
March 7, 1995. He suggested that the Commission send a representative to attend that
City Council meeting. It was suggested that Chairman Karleskint represent the Planning
Commission at the City Council meeting addressing the Neighborhood Enhancement
Ordinance.
COMMKNT & DISCUSSION
Item 3. STAFF COM AND DISCUSSION
Ron Whisenand presented the agenda forecast items for February 22, 1995.
March 8 had one item, which may be continued to Mar 2, 1995. He suggested
deciding on Feb. 22, if the March 8 meeting could be canceled. 22, 1995 has two
rather large, significant projects, a re-zoning amendment to the prev ly approved
�— 19�,
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
January 31, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Cindy Clemens
SUBJECT: Analysis Re Property Maintenance Ordinance
Enforcement Procedures
Before discussing the problems with enforcing the existing
Municipal Code regulations and how those problems will be remedied
in the proposed ordinance, a brief general discussion about code
enforcement is necessary. When a complaint is received, the Code
Enforcement Officer conducts an investigation, including a site
visit. If he determines that a violation of the Municipal Code
exists, a letter is sent to the property owner explaining the
violation and advising the property owner when a reinspection will
occur. If the violation is not corrected by the time of the
reinspection, the Code Enforcement Officer will prepare a report
and forward it to the City Attorney's Office for legal action.
The City Attorney's Office has two possible options. A nuisance
abatement hearing can be held before the City Council which
includes public testimony by City staff detailing the violation and
an opportunity for the property owner to speak. If the City
Council finds a violation exists, a resolution is adopted directing
the owner to correct the violation within a set time frame, usually
thirty days. If this is not done, the City can then either use
City crews or hire a contractor to correct the violation and assess
a tax lien against the property for those costs. However, before
the City crews or City-hired contractor can enter private property
to physically abate the violation, an abatement warrant must be
obtained from a judge. This nuisance abatement process takes 4-6
months, costs thousands of dollars in staff and City Council time,
and requires a public hearing on the item.
The alternate procedure is for the City Attorney's Office to file
a criminal complaint. The Municipal Code specifically states that
violations of the Code are unlawful and punishable as either
criminal misdemeanors or infractions. In order to successfully
prosecute Code violations, the courts require the Code language to
be clear and unambiguous. This is - to comply with the
constitutional requirement of due process. This process takes
about 2-3 months to complete, involves much less staff time, and
has proven to be very effective.
-y0
The problem with using the criminal complaint process to enforce
the existing Municipal Code property maintenance provisions is that
those provisions either don't exist or are too vague and ambiguous
to pass constitutional muster. For example, Section 17 . 16. 020 (3)
states that " (a) ll yards shall be landscaped or maintained in an
orderly manner. " If a complaint of a tattered sofa in the front
yard were prosecuted under this section, the courts would find the
provision to be too vague, i.e. , the property owner would not
necessarily know that putting a sofa in the front lawn is against
the Code.
Additionally, the Zoning Regulations do not currently expressly
state that violations of those regulations is an unlawful act
punishable as a crime. Even though Section 1. 12. 050 states that a
violation of any provision of the Municipal Code is unlawful and
can be criminally prosecuted, several local judges have expressed
a concern that the actual zoning regulations which define the
violations do not contain similar language.
Therefore, the proposed ordinance is necessary to correct these
problems and make very clear what is prohibited and that violations
of the ordinance are unlawful criminal violations. It should be
stressed that violations are deemed infractions, as opposed to the
more serious misdemeanors which means no jail time is possible and
the maximum fine for a first time offense is only $100:00. Also,
the process involves at most two court appearances, namely the
arraignment and the court trial.
After hearing the previous public testimony and reanalyzing the
proposed ordinance, the City Attorney's Office recommends the
following changes to the proposed ordinance. Section 17. 17 . 080
should be amended as follows:
17.17 .080 Prohibited acts.
A. Unlawful acts. It is unlawful for any
Corporation that owns,: cccupaes a aontrals' property r tie City a:f
San Luis OizaspQ. to maintain or fail to maintainsuch
property` in violation of this chapter for more than 72 hours.
eeeupant eL• ether- persen resgensibie €er the eendlitlen eftee
vieiatien existing at his er her-iqEegery
B. Type of offense.. Any person who violates any provision of
this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. B eh and every
violations
shall be punishable as set forth in Chapter 1. 12 of the San Luis
P
Obispo Municipal Code. Nothingn this chapter shall beeerned or
constituted tQ : prevent the City from ' :Commencing any ' civil
proceeding > othe rwise : authorizecl icy haw far the declaratfan ox
abateaeent of a`public nuasance ;
2
• �- �5
E. c ^err-eet}en Net"e. A epr.rceetien ..a. e, and ....'1
amended l a leerre..a: en a L l l be se ..d epen aL
rreeerd owneP er epen the first assessee , is;;_ed tax as...........__a
preeeedings, hereunde-rr as te any- ether per-sen duly setwed er relleve
-
methesso€ serviee. c of the a a. shall be
wells
either l l L. 7 rZ G L 19.etiee
to ,..L
1 t C aL a et - If
a ..,drive..
tztise netiee shall be se $tailed, addEessed te seeh persen, at the
building 1. a at. preeeed. _gs. The r- l.
validity F -ny pEeeeedings
a t endeE
this
et
The reasons for the requested changes are as follows. First,
Section 17 . 17 .080 (A) should be clarified to clearly state that both
the owner and the occupant can be held responsible for violations.
This is consistent with the other property-related codes enforced
by the City including the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Fire
Code. The courts have consistently recognized that a landowner's
responsibility to comply with the law extends to code violations
committed by tenants. " [W]hether the context be civil or
criminal, liability and the duty to take affirmative action flow
not from the landowner's active responsibility for a condition of
his land that causes such harm but rather, and quite simply, from
his very possession and control of the land in question. " (Leslie
Salt Co v San Francisco Bay Conservation (1984) , 153 Cal.App. 3d
605, 622, 200 Cal.Rptr. 575. )
Second, Section 17 . 17. 080 (B) should be modified to add the final
sentence regarding the alternate procedure of nuisance abatement.
Because there may be a situation where staff will want to pursue
the nuisance abatement process instead of, or in addition to, the
criminal process, the ordinance should provide sufficient
flexibility for this to occur.
Third, Sections 17 . 17 . 080 (C) and (D) should be removed from the
ordinance to avoid the impression that service of a correction
notice is an element of the offense which must be proven in court.
Although as discussed below, the actual implementation of this
ordinance will involve mailing of a correction notice, the City
Attorney's Office does not recommend making this a requirement of
the ordinance. The goal of streamlining and reducing the
enforcement costs would be greatly hindered if personal service or
certified mail service of a correction notice is required for every
violation. The elements of the offense should remain that a
3
�..J d
violation of one of the ordinance provisions existed for more than
72 hours.
The biggest concern with this recommended enforcement strategy
seems to be the potential that a property owner will be held
criminally responsible for a violation that he or she was unaware
existed. Actually, the courts have held that imposition of such
liability without fault, known as strict liability, is appropriate
for regulatory statutes enacted for public morals, health, peace
and safety. (People v. Travers (1975) , 52 Cal .App. 3d 111, 124
Cal.Rptr 728) . In fact, one court applied strict liability against
a property owner for violations of several violations of the Los
Angeles Municipal Code relating to property maintenance. (People
v. Bachrach (1980) , 114 Cal.App. 3d Supp.8, 12 , 170 Cal.Rptr. 773 . )
However, in reality, the property owner will receive notice of the
violation and have an ample opportunity to correct prior to the
filing of a criminal complaint. Because the City's primary goal is
to achieve compliance, a correction notice will be left on site and
also sent to the property owner once City staff has completed a
site visit and verified the violation. The correction notice will
state that the violation needs to be corrected in 72 hours. A
reinspection will occur after 72 hours. Only those violations
which remain after 72 hours will be referred to the City Attorney's
Office. Moreover, the Municipal Court requires that the defendant
be given a copy of the complaint and three weeks' notice of the
arraignment date, which is the first court date. During that time
the property owner will have time to correct the violation, notify
the City Attorney's Office of the correction, and have the case
dismissed prior to any court appearance.
A final point regarding enforcement procedures is the issue of
using voluntary mediators to resolve violations. While neighbors
are always encouraged to try to work things out, there will be
situations where someone does not agree with the law and chooses
not to follow the law even after friendly reminders or meetings
with fellow neighbors. Enforcement will be needed and that will
always be the responsibility of the City.
Confidentiality of Complaints
Much of the public testimony included negative comments about the
fact that names of the complaining party are not disclosed to the
violator. The rationale for this policy is simple. This is the
standard procedure in code enforcement in virtually every city and
county. People who report code violations should be free from the
fear of retaliation should their identity be disclosed. A policy
of confidentiality encourages people to report possible violations,
and such cooperation is needed in these times of reduced municipal
finances.
An additional point to consider is that the complaint is only the
4
first step. Each complaint is screened and investigated by City
staff. Once the violation is confirmed, the City becomes the
complaining party. All investigation reports are filed with the
criminal complaint and sent to the defendant along with the
complaint. If the case proceeds to trial, the defendant will be
able to hear from and cross-examine the City staff who investigated
the violation, thereby satisfying the defendant's right to face his
or her accuser.
Also, the judge can order the City to reveal the name of the
original complainant upon a showing of good cause for the
disclosure. If the defendant truly believes there is a valid
reason to know, beyond simple curiosity, the request can be made to
the judge.
Private Property Riahts v Government Regulation
The issue of whether the government has the authority to regulate
property maintenance standards was also raised several times during
the public hearing. The answer to this is that a city can enact
such land use regulations pursuant to its police power to protect
the public health, safety and welfare. In California, the general
police power to enact or enforce land use regulations is contained
in Article XI, Section 7 of the State Constitution, which states:
"A county or city may make and enforce within
its limits all local, police, sanitary, and
other ordinances and regulations not in
conflict with general laws. "
The courts have taken a broad view of the, application of local
police power to zoning regulations. (See Village of Euclid v.
Amber Realty Co. (1926) , 47 S.Ct. 114 ; Village of Belle Terre v.
Boraas (1979) , 94 S.Ct. 1536. ) In fact, the courts have recognized
that 11 [i3t is well established that the concept of public welfare
encompasses a broad range of factors, including aesthetic values as
well as monetary and physical ones, and that a concern for
aesthetics and 'character' is a legitimate governmental objective. "
(Desmond v County of Contra Costa (1993) , 21 Cal.App.4th 330, 337-
338 , 25 Cal.Rptr. 2d 842 , 847 . )
CBC/sw
5
TABLE #1
Specifically Covered by Covered by Not currently
Issues covered by general provisions general provisions covered
existing code Not enforced Text change required
Sofa,chairs in front yard x
Recreational vehicle X
in driveway
Recreational vehicle as X
temporary dweling
Recreational vehicle X
storage
Parking on lawn X
Storage in front yards x
Disable vehicles x
and parts
Items on roofs
(collapsed antenna, X
furniture)
Debris in yard, x
fire hazard
Debris in yard, x X
not fire hazard
Garbage cans x
in front yards
Collapsed or x
damaged fence
Boats,tailors x
in front yards
Concreting front yards x
Abandoned buildings x
Outdoor storage, X
screening&placement
Civil penalties x
Landscape Maintenance X
To: Mr. Belsher s 1/11/95
The Planning. Commission of
San Luis Obispo County.
Dear Sirs,
This morning I read the article in the Tribune regarding the yard
maintenance measure and I am strongly opposed to it.
If this measure passes, an unfriendly neighbour can make your life a'li.ving
hell. Not everyone has the time or money to fence his yard, paint the house
or fix a leaking roof in the time cf. . . . i2 hours.
I am writing this letter to stop this measure from passing as I have
seen what it can do to a person who lives next to an unfriendly neighbor.
the following is an account of what happened to my son, who lived in his
house for more than 7 years in a middle class neighbourhood without any
complaints. Then a new neighbor zoved into a newly built 2 story home which
covered the entire small lot , leaving about a 1� foot space between his house
and the fence. The house also left very little space to the back, where it
bordered on m,.y son's place. Since my son likes to work on cars, he always
has a lot of vehicles around, working on cars is like a hobby to him and
he invested quite a bit of money in older cars and trucks. Ever since this.
neighbor moved in he complained about vehicles that were parked in the front.
and when he ,:roved these to the back, he did not like that either. toy son tried
to cooperate and pay h of the fence he insisted that should be renewed.
His horse is not much better or worse then others in the neighbourhood.
Uny should he be Angled out?'. Even though all vehicles are now in the
backyard and covered with tarps and behind his fence, the neighbour is not
satisfied untill he gets rid of all of them. I agree that this may look like.
gunk to some people but not everybody feels that way. This has caused him a lot
of heartacke and sleepless nights leading him close to a nervous breakdown.
Is it fair to empower one neighbour to dictate to someone else what is
unsightly and leaves a homeowner open to many lawsuits and neighbours suiing
each other. Present laws are there already to deal with frontyards. Why include
backyards also ? I think everyone should be able to keep his backyard the way
''he wants it. If it is fenced in and articles visible from the street are covered
that should be enough and how should this be enforced? Are we going to peek
over fences or go overhead with a helicopter ? I sincerely hope this will be
turned down. Sincerely,
TPiJ�9 Ytyl• 1—rJ-1'k-)(,(j,A.QO Friday,January 27, 1995 B-5
Don't throw the RV out
with the bath water
Viewpoint
To the editor.
The proposed property maintenance regula-
tions for the city of San Luis Obispo have me quite
concerned -
Homeowners grouphas The same regulations are lumping clutter,
debris, trash and RVs into the same category.
/ Granted,no one who has any pride in his property
earned SLO s g rat it u d e would advocate the placing of old furtuture, used
refrigerators,garbage or debris in his front yard-
By
ardBy Naoma Wright However,I cannot see the correlation between
the aforementioned items and RVs.Most RVs are
SAN LUIS OBISPO — Residents Some of the people Primo in the five- or six-digit category and cost
for Quality Neighborhoods is a re could onl talk about more than many houses. We RVers are proud of
markable organizationd y our equipment and our homes and would do
Since its inception, the overstuffed devalu
one thing: They didn't nothing to e either one.
falrmg apart couches have disap want one telling if a person has a well-defined parking area, is
nan
penned from the roofs of neighbor- y o not obstructing visibility and is in a safe location,
hoods all over town because RQN has them they can't keep why can't the RV stay there?
reintroduced pride in the mainte their large motor homes I cannot argue with prohibiting living in RVs in
nance of properties.Homeowners are your yard or parking them for long periods on city
planting trees,keeping cars off of the in their front driveways streets. However, the prohibition of parking on
middle of front lawns, and instead ofall city onear around. one's own property when there is no problem of
the e slide that the city was is health, safety or welfare is a violation of constitu-
tional rights.
A few of the people who attended I Inge interested citizens to contact the San
the Jan. 11 Planning Commission enforced Luis Obispo Planning Commission as well as the
meeting knew little or nothing about Much was said about property City Council and request that these regulations not
RQN.Instead of learning about all of rights.What about the property rights be adopted in their present format.
the good it does,.they damned the and devaluation of one's property Ernest G.Triple
organization without even knowing when they own a home next to a San Luis Obispo ja7/9S
what they were talking about property that is virtually a garbage
Some of the people could only talk dump?Don't these homeowners have
about one thing: They didn't want a right not to. have their property
anyone telling them they can't keep devalued and shouldn't they be able to
their large motor homes in their front receive some help from the city about
driveways all year around, blocking this problem without having to take
their neighbors'vim'• the next-door property owner to
Some of these rigs hang over the court?
front sidewalks (this is against the Everyone agrees that San Luis
law) making it difficult for pedestri- Obispo is a wonderful town and a
ans, who must walk in the street If beautiful place to live but it was
these folks can afford these large definitely on a downhill spiral until
motor homes then they should be able RQN came along.
to keep them in the RV storage south Neighbor working with neighbor
of town that is set aside for them. will certainly keep the city on an even
They should not be a blight on keel and make San Luis Obispo an
neighborhoods and offend their neigh- even better place to live if there is
hots' views. Common courtesy tells more understanding of the problems
us this. and how to solve them, and most
It was very impressive to see how definitely more understanding and
receptive and open minded the Plan- cooperation between neighbors.
ning Commission Ras to the RQN .1 1
proposals.Many of the ordinances are Naoma Wright lives in San Luis
already on the books and are never Obispo.
20 Jan 1995
Note to file:
Larry Peterson, 544-4491, called. He said he supports efforts to
keep recreational vehicles off streets and out of driveways, that
they can cause traffic problems and are often an eyesore.
Judy Lautner
Planning Commission of San Luis Obispo January 17, 1995
City Hall
re: Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance
Dear Commission members:
This letter is in the form of a personal request and also an
announcement of our support for a meaningful neighborhood enhancement
ordinance, one that will promote clear and sensible landscape
regulations for all homeowners, and also strict guidelines regarding
the parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas.
As a resident of the Exposition Park area of San Luis Obispo, my wife
and I, along with a city department head who resides nearby, had to
become involved in a confrontation with a neighbor/RV owner who felt it
was his right to park his motor home in his driveway, in full view of
all the homeowners in our cul-de-sac, for weeks and months at a time.
The situation was finally resolved but has resulted in strained
relations by all concerned. If a firmly-stated RV ordinance had been in
effect last year, this situation would have been resolved without the
bad feelings that now exist.
We also reside in an area which contain a number of absentee homeowners
who rent their properties to students and others. In some instances,
this has resulted in unsightly and poorly-maintained landscaping which
is a blight on some sections of Exposition Park. There are a few rented
homes which have also fallen into obvious disrepair and are in need of
new paint, etc. This results in a difficult situation when someone is
attempting to sell his/her residence.
It is our sincere desire that you recommend to the City Council passage
of a strong neighborhood enhancement ordinance.
Very Truly Yours, o
//Iul
Marcotte &CJean B. Marcotte
445 Cumbre Ct.
an Luis Obispo, CA
�-57
Gordon D. Hayduk
R8tain this d'ccoment for
(305) 543-4200 rutuie cou:x;t me
3440 Gregory Court _� 7,� 9
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-6044 sate, a:e�d zed
IVIEDD DI
Tuesday;January 17th, 1995 AM �0V O FIN D RR RECL v ED
O FIRE CHIEF JAN 17 )yy�
Councilwoman mith o� Rte ❑ PW CE �eNan couNc►c
Kathyy G O PC+UCE CNF ^'cap Ca
San Luis Obispo City Council o MGMT TEAM 0 REC DIR
990 Palm Street o C READ FILE 0 UTIL DIR
San Luis Obispo, Califomia 934011, Q PERS DIR
C^ire,
�-. o,, %3
RE: Comments on the Expansion to Existing Property Maintenance RegulatioN,, In'-/<
C.
Dear Kathy: cam'
It's always a pleasure to see a fellow member of the business community be swept
into office. Congratulations! I look forward to your representational wisdom.
I took the time to attend the Planning Commission meeting on January 11th,
1995. It certainly wasn't as I expected-I had anticipated that Residents for Quality
Neigbborhoods would overwhelm the meeting with their viewpoint. Instead only a couple
their members spoke; and, the majority appeared to be unassociated with any particular
group.Amongst that seemingly diverse group was a solid consensus of opinion on a single
topic: Recreational Vehicles (motorhomes, campers,boats,etc.).
Within that topic (RVs)were feelings of intense passion in the areas of property
rights,vehicle-specific restrictions, hiding or screening RVs,limited duration RV parking for
owners and/or visitors,and general government interference and/or harassment.And I am
of that opinion too; e.g., I believe it is the propery owner's absolute right to park any
vehicle in their driveway or beside their home that they wish.As one RV owner put it, "I'm
proud of my motorhome ... I like the way it looks!" "I take good rare of it!"
RV owners in general and motorhome affectionados in particular are a fun-loving
group.Most motorhome owners I have had the pleasure to meet are great folks—many
are members of the"Good Sam Club". There's a real loyalty in this group ...most would
give you the shin off their back.But,be aware that they alsb can be as mean as a junkyard
dog when cornered. This parking issue may just be the trigger factor.
Members of RQN and others can certainly argue that RVs dcoi t appeal to their eye,
=and they don't belong parked in a residential area such as a property owners driveway. But
that is only their opinion,not their right to decide the issue in question. Maybe when
'these people'start paying my RV insurance,mortgage,homeowner's insurance,and
property taxes they can decide what will be allowed in MY driveway! p
� -SU
I'm not unaware that recreational vehicles can, in some instances, cause problems
J feelings in some neighborhoods.The question is one of where you draw the line.
nent should be very,very careful when they consider restricting a citizen's free
-particularly when it involves property rights. I'm not fully convinced that that
ie within the scope of a government body.
ilowever,maybe some thought should be given to 'limitations'from another
tine.Perhaps a limit on the quantity of recreational vehicles: such as one motor-
ine boat, two motocycles (most folks don't own all of these anyway) —but even
lard call. I believe San Luis Obispo is a place where'people' make their homes; not
Ve of high-minded elitists,preserving a pristine and ultra-sanitary utopian village
pages of Architectural Digest or House Beautiful. Besides, the people from San
spo are human beings who work here, play here,and raise up their families here.
Rile Detre at Monterey it isn't!
f can just visualize the city of San Luis Obispo becoming embroiled in a public
:quagmire over the RV issue.Business people,working folks and retirees alike
iicated many years to the hard-earned reputation for quality tourism we currently
we don't need a negative PR landslide.As a businessperson I don't want San Luis
¢o be made a laughing stock over where and/or how long residents guest's with RVs
or dwell.A bad or improper decision will,in strained economic times, hurt
es and the community at large even more! Be careful of undue influence from
loos and so-called community-minded groups.
n conclusion,when the Planning Commission (and dry staff) passes the Revised t
►Maintenance Regulations over to you,with the hard-handed RV restrictions,I ask
seriously consider eliminating most (if not of the RV restrictions.
incerely, or
' to
Gonion Ha}rduk
f you have any questions, it's ok to call ... otherwise please dedicate your time to
ssuring that the Property Maintenance Regulations turn out to be a quality
locument for afl citizens. a
,e: Copy of a letter to the Editor/Telegram-Tribune
Mark Buchman � -7 V
2350 Lawton Ave. , PVII,, :
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Z, .� 005 544 3453
This letter is in response to a newspaper article de- gticket much less violated another caw.
scribing action coming before the San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission. The action involves a proposed gut what really rarkied me was that anyone could
city ordinance which would regulate what residents create a problem for anyone else over something so
can keep in their front yards,who can turn them in and minor a t:re being Off the pavement espeiizlly when
how long people can sleep in vehicles on city sneers. he same day asthe police arrived he neighbor across
the street has an entire vehicle parked on he lawn
`.•Sany people, ir. fay most, like San Luis Obispo— between two proper ries.
the way it is now. There are not hundreds of calls to
he city complaining about unsightly propertry,or non Because there were three complaints, I contacted -Mr.
operating vehicles in driveways or about trash cans in B;ym at the city. I explained that I thought what us
view. happening might be harassment due to the ethnicity of
my f-4mily.He assured me that wasn't true. He gave
There does seem to be a small minority of people who the address of another location where thee recent
want everyone to live the way they do.I know. I was complaints were filed.
he subject of their oomplaiats for two years.
That was alio a corner house. It wzs com ienert for
Lzt me explain.I formerly lived at 1392 Kentwood. It someone to drive by and nee complaints.
s at thecorner of Southwood and Kentwood. People
=-i much more expensive homes drove by ever;day on 'Then he told me to call the president ofResidents for
,eir way down from above Iohnson Avenue. QualiTy. eighborhoods. I did so the next day. The
president came to the phone and said,"Tm sorry I ca:ft
The first complaint was regarding a small utility talk right now.rm in a bridge game." I was calling on
flatbed trailer that I moved'nom the bacbyard,where my lunch hour from work. Thoppe
e compla�s std
day care was offered,to the driveway. The tire on one after that call.
side of the trailer was not on the paved driveway. That
necessitated someone at the city reading a complaint, Ml y EM purchase in San Luis was a condominium. I
deciding to send a police on', cer and issuing a warh- got ort of the contract after I started readings the deed
g. A personal visit might have done the trick~, but it restrictions or covenants. I knew that for My family
was easier to hide behind the city buteauciracy. which at the time included a nine-y old boy; a r
condo would not work
fbe. second and third complaints regarded a nor
pemtiag vehicle. A collectors item I found for my hstead I saved some more and bought a single family
son who had just turned 16. The vehicle was in the residence—because it would give my son and I more
d veway. ]3 was Bald zther than fight with the city freedom. Then saved more and bought a second lz tier
and unknov-m others. home in San Luis.
It seems these two activities were so discomforting to - -c
The point of all leis—i� people want to live in perfect
someone they filed complaints.Yet is a short walk rogmunities where every tering from house color to
throw he neighborhood, l found 23 similar "viola- where garbage cans are kept they can. This is done
"oma•" throughout the United States through deed restrictions
and convenants.
i was hurt by the complaints and the visit by the
pcEce. In the past 1:years I baven':even had a park- -Neighborhoods have their own personalities. They
1n0� ,
+J a S a K S TSt9 S-o6 SOS$. tI :tT S6 ST. 10
]ive, age, die and a;e reborn. To r`r Ine goap's
r,randards on all of us is .Tong. Ani u"yir'tg to enforce
it may be a bigger, more expensive headache than the
r.ity cares to take on.
If the city wants to allow overnight camping for
These questions may need answers: visitors of city residents,then allow ovenight camp-
ing at Sinshiemer Park. There is plenty ofroom,
IT In this tithe efbudget trimming d smaller govern_ bathroom facilities (although a self-contained n:1e
menjwhaz expense would such an ordinance require? could be applied), and good distance between the
Toth the eventual closing of Diablo and that loss of pig lot and residences.
income to the county and ultimately the clay, shouldn't
the city be looldng a ways to dowrnsize its operations? Land it ironic that in the same ordinance where we are
going to regulate where garbage cans can be kept,we
j Homeownership comes with responsibilities, but would loosen laws meant to control sleeping in ver
should not include making one a eget to gay other hicles ort our streets or in ou drivew 2ys or yards.
city resident who doesn't like the way one's garbage
can is kept. Sone neighborhoods in San LLis are filled h-n summate':
;;ith Garbage car's out font and others are not Chose I zm opposed to f utther empowering groups such as
your neighborhood, but don't u can chance mem an. RQ'-N.
I am opposed to further restricting host we live.
;l lisin'citizens to turn in citizens will eventually I am opposed -Lo letting RVs and trailers become
Iead to spite fences and wmecessery anger. It will also inexpensive rentals. —
mean sporadic and unequal enforcement If this
ordinance is to be adopted,then set up an enforce-
ment section which includes hn ing the manpower
to enforce it. Turning one group of citizens lose on
others is not conscionable.
\i \
lv
d of
� y
?1If the city chooses to _o with titian enforcers, then
at l east include a seczion requi,-ing the fust step to be a.
friendly knock on the door by a neighbor who points
out a problem. The way it is now and sounds like will
be made stronger is all complaints are anom+mous. I
am not a lawyer but I thiuk`were is something about
knowing one's accuser.
From peronsal experience, the amton3=ous threat
creates disttzst of one's neighbors. There is enough of
t,at already to have the city codify it.
On the issue of RVs and letring people use thtm for 72
hours—this would create havoc in a city where
hc-asing is too expensive for most swdrts and some
f.zibes. What would stop a person from staving 71
hours in one place and them moving on to another -
place? //�
February 5, 1995 R E C E , V E D
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission FEB 8 1995
990 PaStreet Crry
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 COIWU:�ry� LOpwifr
Dear Planning Commission Members,
This letter is prompted as a result of the proposal by a group who have adopted the
label, Residents For Quality Neighborhoods and their effort to ban recreational
vehicles from individual driveways and parking on city streets.
It is a rare occasion that prompts us to write and protest any proposal since most bad
ideas find themselves dumped before they end up in laws or ordinances. However, this
issue deserves to be nipped in the bud before it progresses any further.
If the RQN as they like to refer to themselves feel there is a problem with RV's in
their neighborhood, let them address it on a neighborhood basis, not through a city
wide ordinance. There are already existing laws to cover any problems associated with
safety and long term parking. use those existing laws rather than create a new set of
rules drafted to satisfy a small group who feel they should tell everyone else what is
acceptable. If we allow that what is next, having this or another group tell us that
Chevrolets or any white colored vehicle are objectionable and should not be allowed in
our own driveways? If it sounds absurd it should. RV's are legally licensed by the
state just like any other vehicle and are subject to the same laws.
Just for the record, there are at least four RV's on the block where we live, three of
those large motor homes. No-one in our neighborhood has objected to anyone parking on
the street or in their own driveway a couple of days to pack, unpack or clean up after
a trip. Why then should our neighborhood be subjected to a very restrictive ordinance
just because someone in another part of the city objects to seeing RV's in their
neighborhood?
we hope you will agree with our point of view and take whatever steps you can to see
that this proposal is stopped right now. It does not deserve any more time of the
planning commission, the city attorney or the city council.
Sincerely,
✓
Mr and Mrs Stephen A Surdette
1645 E1 Caserio Ct
San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401
a2- �3
8 February 1995
Note to file:
Ernie Tripke called to say that he feels strongly about the RV
provisions in the proposed regulations and recommends that they be
deleted from the ordinance.
Judith Lautner
w
YOST
MANAGEMENT RECEIVED
DEC - 81994 .
CRY OF SAN LUIS OSISpo
COM MUNfTV DEVELopwfiNT
December 7 , 1994
Mr. Ronald Whisenand
Development Review Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O.Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: City' s Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance
Dear Mr. Whisenand:
I have reviewed the draft and see no problems with any of
the sections provided.
My feelings tell me this is a result of problems that exist
with rentals, on the most part, as opposed to owner occupied
units. I can only agree with this action of the City. I
hope that after its swift approval the City will provide a
file of this and other applicable ordinances for property
maintenance to the Real Estate Management offices , like
mine, so the information can be passed on to the owners.
j When properties need work some owners don ' t want to incur
such expense unless I can show them they have no choice.
Sincerely,
Fra st
i
I
2251 Broad Street, Suite C, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Phone (805) 543-8321 a24.ir
Henry & L-.een Case
244 Albert Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
January 14, 1995
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We understand you will be studying the proposed property maintenance ordinances.
We did not appear before the commission on January 11 because we has been so
dismayed by the mediocre proposal and the intransigent attitude of the planning
staff. We have been studying the ordinances of other cities for about 4 years and
have yet to see a city that refuses to have minimal landscape ordinances.
Agreed, the City cannot afford extra zoning expense but we could have been using
abatement procedures that would recover much of the expenses. In 1990 Doreen
visited Davis zoning personnel who implemented new abatement procedures (199 1)
(copy enclosed). Planning was given a copy. We have a slow motion syndrome
here.
Also Kansas City, MO has fliers (enclosed) used since 1991 citing fines of$25
minimum to $500 maximum. We sent this and much more to the Planning
Department and received no interest. Zoning enforcement has 1 & 1/2 persons.
Perhaps the other 1/2 person could be hired if there were income from abatement
procedures such as most progressive cities have.
Some planning personnel are almost paranoid about making a decision in regard to
landscaping problems because of the possibility a challenge in court. For the few
who might threaten legal action, why throw out the baby with the bathwater? A not
so serious complaint could be dropped if it came to that. Better, a backup volunteer
committee of about 5 credentialed landscape persons could make the hard decisions
when a difficult situation arose.
The property maintenance committee in Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, after
reviewing ordinances from numerous cities, voted to submit some reasonable
landscape ordinances. For easy reference they are repeated here:
17.17.100 Landscape Maintenance. The following conditions shall be deemed
unsightly and subject to the abatement provisions of this ordinance:
A. Overgrown vegetation including trees, shrubbery, ground covers,
lawns and decorative plantings which from the overall appearance
results in a diminution of the appearance of the subject property as
compared with adjacent properties;
B. Other vegetation which is unmanaged and in excess of eight (8)
inches, provided cultivated flowers, ornamentals, native grasses, or
food plants shall be presumed to be managed vegetation; (from
Champaign, IL)
C. Dead, decayed or diseased trees, shrubs or other vegetation which is
otherwise in need of landscape maintenance attention.
However, the board of directors (in desperation to get something passed), decided
to accept ordinances that are general and less than mediocre because they were
supported by the staff. This was really discouraging to us.
Most cities have ordinances regulating storage of RV's. We support the San Diego
ordinance as the most desirable. For easy reference excerpts are repeated here:
.2. Unless otherwise noted ......... all stored items shall be completely screened
by legally installed and maintained solid fencing, walls, buildings, landscape
features, or a combination thereof. No item shall exceed the height of the
solid screening enclosure, except where City-wide screening requirements are
stipulated for specific equipment elsewhere in this code.
5. The following items may be placed outdoors if legally installed and
maintained solid fencing, walls, buildings and/or landscape features provide
complete screening from improved streets (placed items may not exceed the
height of the provided screening).
Recreational vehicles, travel trailers, trailers, boats, all-terrain vehicles,
camper shells and similar equipment, provided such equipment is maintained
in serviceable condition. ................. No item listed above may be placed
within a required front or street-side yard; any item which does not exceed
6'0" in height may however, be placed within required interior side and rear
yards.
Unscreened, RV's are a blight in a neighborhood. Owners often feel they that since
they cost from $40,000 to $500,000 the neighbors will admire them in spite of the
fact that they are usually mammoth, ugly, prevent use of the garage for its intended
purpose and are seldom used. A $25 per month storage fee should be part of the
package such as insurance and gasoline. We all know that RV's are not an
economical investment.
We are active in the Alta Vista Neighborhood near Poly. Most of the residents are
considerate of one another. What problems there are usually occur with out of town
or out of state landlords who look at rentals as a source of income and neglect their
c2
responsibilities for even the most minimal maintenance. More of this unfortunate
attitude exists in other neighborhoods around town that have become especially
blighted.
Planners say they will conduct landscape seminars. That will never reach out of
town/state landlords who don't care as long as they collect the rent. There two
houses on Slack St. owned by a man who has 100 rentals in the San Luis Obispo
area. It is big business. He will not give his tenant even $5 for maintenance or
improvements. The college students in one of the houses have spent their own time
and money to landscape it and make livable (a rare situation).
A few landlords in Alta Vista provide gardening service, but most overlook that is
their legal responsibility and could care less that it prevents the sale of the house.
next door or depresses the value 10 to 20 percent.
It is very likely that more people who are employed in town would have taken up
residence in San Luis Obispo (or not moved out of town) if they had some
protection against these situations.
We feel San Luis Obispo is worth saving. The City of Davis protects its residents.
They feel that UC Davis is a jewel and as should be placed in a nice setting. We feel
the same about San Luis Obispo and-trust you do, too.
Sincerely,
r
o .
Henry & Doreen Case �
P.S. Included are some city ordinances. We were especially impressed with,l
Covina's - a working man's town (not Brentwood). It was drafted by excellent
planners trying to help the community. Also, have included othe materials.
Also, we wish to add that the confidential request for investigation forms are very
effective and spare ill feelings even though the recipient may not be pleased.
POLICY ANALYSIS
FOR
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
ORDINANCE
Prepared by
MASTERS OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING STUDENTS
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHMC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Under the guidance of
Professor D.F.G. Williams
INTRODUCTION
This analysis is being provided to the Planning Commission by first year Cal Poly graduate
students in City and Regional Planning under the guidance of Professor Grant Williams. The
paper will provide an analysis of the problems, objectives, recommendations, and alternative
policies associated with the proposed property maintenance ordinance. We hope this analysis
sheds light the issue.
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
The problem will be defined from the perspectives of the group Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods (RQN), recreational vehicle(RV) owners, homeowners, renters, students, and
the general public (including the city government)
RQN
From the perspective of RQN, some neighborhoods of the city have gradually
deteriorated to the point where blight is becoming widespread. Run down homes, couches in
"inappropriate" places, unattended landscaping, unshielded RV's, and publicly visible storage
have degraded the appearance of the community. According to RQN, this has resulted in a
less aesthetically pleasant living environment for the public, reduction of property value,
excessive street parking, and unsafe conditions, especially for children.
J
RQN has some specific objectives. They believe that any furniture, RV's, boats, trailers and
aesthetically unsightly materials should be removed or screened from public view. They feel
that a minimum amount of paving should be mandated to mitigate the excessive parking in
the front of properties. RQN suggests that a limit should be placed on the objects allowed on
the rooftops and a requirement imposed to mandate that fencing remain aesthetically
attractive. Their view is that a 72 hour time limit should be placed on RV visits. They also
feel that a landscape maintenance requirement should be imposed. In general, RQN believes
that these standards should be strictly enforced by the City through issuance of citations.
RV OWNERS
RV owners believe that the problem of creeping blight is one of concern to all
homeowners and residents of the city of San Luis Obispo. Their perspective, however is
that "blight" does not include the presence of RVs as provided by the proposed ordinance.
The proposed measures for screening or off-site storage would place an undue burden on RV
owners, requiring the expenditure of substantial sums of money to achieve compliance.
Furthermore, the proposed six foot screening requirement by the City would only provide a
partial camouflage, resulting in a non-solution to the alleged problem. Additionally, the
proposed enforcement procedure, although simpler than the existing plan, still is
primarily adversarial in nature and encourages conflicts between neighbors. Finally, the
proposed 72 hour provision is unreasonable in that guests/visitors often stay longer and
correction of violations may require more time.
1
c2- 740
Although as stable community members they do believe that blight is a problem that needs to
be addressed, RV owners main objective is not the strict property maintenance proposed by
RQN. Their overriding concern is the preservation of their current RV situation.
HOMEOWNERS
Some San Luis Obispo homeowners worry that the proposed ordinance could place an
unfairburden on certain members of the community. They believe that receiving anonymous
complaints could be a problem. Alongside of this, they fear exposure to retaliation if one
was to speak out. They perceive that citizens on a fixed income may have difficulty being
able to maintain otherwise dilapidated property. Pernicious complaints could result in uneven
enforcement from neighbor to neighbor. They feel that the 72 hour response time frame is
difficult for absentee owners and they fear frivolous complaints.
Similar to RQN, homeowners have a concern over the property values and aesthetics of the
community. There is a sentiment however that their freedom as property owners may be
infringed upon if the ordinance is strictly enforced. Thus their objective is that standards are
upheld, but are also flexible towards the needs of certain homeowners.
CITY GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL PUBLIC
The City government's priorities range from neighborhood.improvement to feasible
and fiscally sound enforcement. The City government's proposed property maintenance
ordinance is evidence of their desire to improve the beauty of the City. Further, the City has
long been interested in improving the maintenance of private property in San Luis Obispo.
The City also has interest in sustaining the tourist industry. If the town becomes run down
people may be less likely to visit.
From the City government's perspective, any ordinance must be feasible to enforce. They
believe they should not have the responsibility of trivial, detailed infringements (i.e.
measuring grass lengths). Costs, enforcement bureaucracy, and additional staff workload
must be limited. Any ordinance should be tailored to limit law suits against the City.
STUDENTS
There is a systemic conflict between permanent residents and students. Some stable,
permanent residents believe students allow neighborhoods to decay because they drift in and
out of the City. Some residents perceive that students live in crowded conditions and have
lifestyles that accelerate the deterioration of neighborhoods. Students, on the other hand,
have a genuine need for low cost housing and will inevitably have lower standards of
maintenance than permanent residents.
RENTERS
Renters have a concern that they will be held responsible for their property when
responsibility should be placed on those owning the rental property. It is especially difficult
when owners live out of town and rarely visit their property.
2
c2-
7�
OTHER ISSUES
This conflict has some core issues that need to be addressed. First, some consensus
needs to be reached regarding what constitutes "blight". RQN might see a neighborhood as
blighted while others might see the same neighborhood as comfortable, low cost housing.
Thus, some neighborhood standards for maintenance needs to be reached.
Further, we believe that RV owners and lower income residents view RQN as an elitist group
attempting to impose their standards of neighborhood maintenance on the rest of the City.
This undercurrent of resentment must be addressed in order to reach an amicable agreement.
OBJECTIVES
Any solution should meet the following objectives:
• Improve neighborhood maintenance and appearance.
• Limit neighbor vs. neighbor confrontation and hostility.
• Foster the preservation of cohesive neighborhoods. This requires agreed upon
neighborhood definitions of blight.
• Limit law suits against the city.
• Limit extra work for city lawyers and administrators and be easy for the city to
enforce.
A inimize cost for land owners and renters.
•
Minimize ize inequitable impacts
• Provide the option of anonymity to protect citizens who report complaints with a
neighbor's maintenance.
• Solution must be politically feasible.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
The current climate dictates three feasible alternative solutions to the problem.
• Do not pass or clarify any more ordinances regarding property maintenance and do
not enforce the existing laws.
• Implement a politically acceptable version of an amended ordinance through clear,
.easy to enforce rules, city patrol, and neighborhood complaints as recommended by
the Planning Commission Staff Report.
• .-Implement a politically acceptable version of the amended ordinance and attempt a
different implementation technique.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
• ' Judging from the staff report and the last public hearings on this issue there is some
consensus aclmowledging the need to improve residence and business property
3
maintenance. If no law is enforced, the problems associated with neighborhood
deterioration would accelerate and the interest groups would become further divided
and hostile.
• With some changes, such as modifying the rules for RV storage, a politically practical
ordinance amendment can be passed.
However, enforcement based on complaints by a neighbor or patrols by the city would
be confrontational and would further polarize the already hostile interest groups.
Also, the inflexibility of this method of enforcement would make each detail of the
ordinance hotly debated because of the inflexibility of this method of enforcement.
Enforcement of the law through immediate government coercion of alleged offenders,
legal action, or fines could create more work for City of San Luis Obispo lawyers,
staff, and politicians.
This process would also create a hostile environment, pitting interest groups,
neighbors, citizen, and city government against one another. Alternative B) would
improve neighborhood maintenance, but at the expense of neighborhood cohesiveness
and cooperation.
• Depending on the implementation method, option c) could meet the evaluation criteria
outlined above.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The class recommends a neighborhood approach to enforcement of the problem.
Using a neighborhood approach would build community standards for maintenance, limit city
involvement in complaints, ease the confrontation created by legal threats, and enhance
neighborhood maintenance and cohesiveness. Here is a brief outline of such a program.
Neighborhood groups to mediate problems would initially be formed through city
incentives such as providing a monthly dumpster, providing meeting places, and funding
annual block parties. If groups are mandated or coerced, the neighborhoods would become
hostile and the system would probably fail. These groups should be representative of the
neighborhood and participation should be on a rotating basis.
If someone has a complaint that person would be mandated to contact their
maintenance mediation group before they reported the problem to city government A
representative of the group would visit or send a note to the alleged maintenance offender
informing that person of the complaint. The notice should be explicitly non judgmental.
If complaints continue, the alleged ordinance violator is told to attend a meeting of the
neighborhood group. The group would listen to and discuss the disagreement and try to
mediate a compromise.
The complainant could remain anonymous by passing their wishes on to the group.
Then the group could meet with the alleged offender and design a compromise without the
4
presence of the complainant. It should be made clear, however, that presence at the meeting
would be better for the complainant even though they would not have to be there. Their
presence would provide the best representation of their interests.
If a compromise could not be agreed upon by the end of the meeting, the complainant
would have the option to inform the City and the process recommended by the staff report
would be implemented.
The activities and incentives surrounding this'method would enhance neighborhood
building through involvement, interaction, and non-confrontational problem solving.
Eventually, these activities would bring about community standards; pressure to conform to
these standards would organically build without the need for enforcement or mediation
_measures. Neighborhoods would learn to take care of their own problems, easing the strain
on city employees and lessening the chance of costly law suits against the city, between
residents, and amongst businesses.
There are several details that need to be discussed. For instance, there is a danger
that community boards may become dominated by a small, unrepresentative group trying to
impose its standard on their neighborhood. In addition, there is the possibility of minimal
neighborhood participation and overall community indifference. Therefore it is imperative
that the city concern itself with initial program publicity and implementation.
MONITOR THE EWLEMENTED POLICIES
It is imperative that the city implement and monitor the program because of the
potential problems stated above. Firstly, the city should concern itself with the organization
of neighborhood.groups. If attempts to encourage formation of a particular neighborhood
have failed, the city should step in and enforce the maintenance ordinance. Further, the
effectiveness of the ordinance should be reviewed periodically to monitor its success.
CONCLUSION
We believe that the current controversy can be used not only to overcome the property
maintenance problem, but also as an opportunity to create neighborhoods that are diverse,
have character and a healthy social ecology.
5
2— �7`
RECEIVED
FEB 2 1995
MY OF SAN LUIS oetSPO
1140 Lee Ann Court COMM"DMOP~EKT
San Luis Obisoo . CA 93401-5024
(805) 544-7815
February 2 , 1995
Planning Connissioners
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing this letter to share with you my concerns about the
proposed changes and additions to the city's.•property maintenance
regulations which are scheduled to be considered at your scheduled
meeting February S. 1995.
In general , I an opposed to the intrusion of government into the
lives of its citizens unless there is clear evidence that such
intrusion will benefit the community and its citizens. Statutes
and regulations which impinge on individual rights or property
rights without a compelling basis should be avoided. It seems to
me that there is general agreement with this propostion at most
levels of government today.
I fail to see a compelling basis for any of the changes proposed.
I believe that current zoning requirements and existing city
ordinances, supplemented by CC&R's in various developments, if
enforced, are quite adequate.
I find clearly offensive most of the proposals regarding
recreational vehicles. I made a tour of my immediate neighborhood
this morning. I identified 19 homes where recreational vehicles
are "stored" , or have been stored recently (see list of addresses
attached) . There were 14 recreational vehicles, 2 with both a
recreational vehicle and a boat, and 3 with only a boat. Of the
19, only 2 meet the proposed screening requirement (I am 1 of the
2) , and several of the other .17 would find it very difficult or
impossible to comply. Yet of the 19 , only 1 might be regarded as
detracting from the esthetic value of the home/neighborhood. It
seems to me that citywide a lot of people will find these proposed
regulations very burdensome without any substantive benefit to the
community in general.
a- �s
�ntno of t}+n _o hr%T"ecwners have ocne to considerable ev=ense to
provide a neat; convenient parkina area for their recreational
vehicles. This a a feature often metioned when homes are offered
for sale. In the real estate section of the TELEGRAM TRIBUNE for
Saturday. January 28, 1995, I located 18 ads which described homes
with RV parkina. Clearlv such a feature must add value to manv
home owners/buyers, property. Such value should not be removed
without the demonstration of a compelling need to the community.
Homeowners who find RV-s "offensive" in a neighborhood can find
many neighborhoods where CC&R's prohibit them.
I believe it is fair to say that many of the recreational vehicle
owners in ray immediate neighborhood are retirees. I have always
believed that the attitude of our city was one of being "retiree
friendly" . This proposed regulation is anything but "retiree
friendly" .
While I agree that RV's should not be used as dwellings, I .believe
that current zoning regulations and city ordinances are adequate to
prevent such use. I believe that the proposed limit on "visiting"
RVIs is much too restrictive. Instead of 72 hcursT• I would think
that 1 month is fairer, or certainly at least 2 weeRs, provided the
vehicle complies with other existing requirements if it is parked
on the street in a residential parking space.
Specifically, the proposed definition of a recreational vehicle
(17.04.325) should be much more precise. The definition as written
includes "other vehicle designed and intended for travelling and
recreational purposes. " . This definition is so broad that it
includes practically every motor vehicle and perhaps even bicycles .
It certainly includes modified vans which are about the same
configuration as panel trucks. Are citizens to be required to
treat such vehicles the same as the much larger "RV's"?
Let me urge you again to not recommend such unnecessary and
intrusive regulations on the community.
Respectfully �yours,
Harold R. Miller
List of hones with "PNT storage"
1732 Lee Ann Court
1740 Lee Ann Court
1748 Lee Ann Court
1760 Jami Lee Court
1772 Jami Lee Court
1776 Jami Lee Court
3436 Edgewood
3447 Edgewood
3477 Sequoia
3489 Sequoia
1645 Crestview Circle
1690 Crestview Circle
3425 Sycamore
3486 Sycamore
3588 Sycamore
1629 Southwood
1560 Tanglewood
1631 Tanglewood
1645 Tanglewood
�,- 079
IECEIVED
JAN 1 01995
CY3aN-:CHA?G SCHI':9IGT.- pUIS03SP0
ffyLMTEV
112 Brood Street, Son Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
Janupry 10, 1995
Re: Property I:iaintenance Regulations, Jan. 12 agenda
To he Planning Commission:
1 urge you to kill this unnecessary, busy-body ordinance. It is an exercise in class
srrcgance designed to impose the taste of an elite upon the many. It undermines
civil liberties. There is no need for a city wide ordinance of this sort.
l could .write at length about the poorly conceived nature of the proposed ordinance. : ..i
try to be to tjhe point and highlight a few items that are illustrative of broader
prcblerns :wi?h this vague and overly broad instrument.
i . !e Process Denied. The approach of the ordinance, to make it an -unlawful act- to
vi::ate any of the ordinance's provisions, subject to fine as an infraction, constitutes a
-ndarre^tal act of unfairness on the city's part because of the vague mature of the
vic!a!icn. and the high likelihood that the Average Joe or Josephine would be ura,k!are
:i-nt hs or she is behaving illegally. (One doesn't normally think in America that an i:!-
p!s:ed sofa will cause a fine greater than driving 70 mph in a school zone.)
!" 5' or?, any vic!a?ion of the text, no matter how petty, subjects someone to a fire. To
„z.nr.ouno a highly puni:lve measure ( Each and every day any ��^�= i n ex Si
s
;�r,sti?UtcS a separate offense" -- 17.17.080.B) adds to the arbitrariness anal
:aorici,---mess of the ordinance's approach -- not to mention the potenfialfor it to
become an instrument of harassment. One conceivably could be subjected ?o repeated
fires simply for having, say, a fence that meets one's needs perfectly •,yell, but which an
RON maven or ether civic busybody succeeds in convincing a code enforcement officer
is not "structurally sound" or is "missing material." Can you, or any other reasonable
Gerson, stale what fences would be legal and what would be illegal under such a vague
_rc:'is;nn? VYho decides, for example, if material is "missing?" Is any mat2r;al M;SSir.V
riisnsa? Or there some threshold amount of missing material ihat becor,es an
ic^' ce.r.s2d arch;l2Ct, iralned In s1fUClura mailQfS, an 1'•rWl.::� „�'V_ '^
,;ea i,c-.. ?o d= ermine. for p;,rpcses of this law, when a fence is •'siruCturaPy scu^C.
a5section 17.17.010 states, the IS..uQ that mJIvG...S lie o•ClnGnl,v
^c;<r nce. ar d appearance is highly subjective, not objective. 2nd probably I,as
C'tit i g a, all to do ,,with what a building professional like myself wouid rnean by
:r:ctural." Bureaucrats don't use words the same way architects do; :.se
'L-.e term -structural?" Nobody knows. (I use fences as an example of textual prebler,s in..
cruel':nce: ,.^!ease don't get sidetracked on that -- the vagueness and arhitrariness
exter•ds from end fo end of this proposed ordinance, and is not ccr,'ined
2- �U
T` :Imari.2, ',o subject at y Citi22n t0 a fine BCCOrdir:g ;0 pULe!y Su_,eC'i� c^ Cr::cr•= S c
i';I� :n1c^ ial unfairness. It is arbitrary. The infrac,ion process usually dears '::'!:h r'�'.t5r5
rI
;i?at are h':h!y ob;Eclive: 'Cr example, vicla:icn of speed limits hich c'Q ^Cs,cd.
+Q r 'iv CL!t£ria !IkQ 1hCse C1 ;ham prCfCsed
Fr=_hfshing a viClai!C'1 Ci SubiECtive, in, rD 2. £
r ( '` Q1hEr somebody else Ekes yoL'r 'Enc2, 'or 2x2mpl?) S 'Cl`S,ra:C.ri'Cr',':ard.
crdina •C2 �„
h2 'nfraclion ,ickel arri%,es. Th'.s !S 'r•'air. A
C'!1e has no yarning of illecali,y bef +
ore ,
C tizen hss a fundamental right to know in advance if ore's acts constitute
lities; such a right is impossible under an ordinance like the one being
prcpcsad. The present "abatement procedure" at least provides for ad udiC'tic•n
of the issue in a quasi-judicial fashion. Infraction tickets do not afford such
crotection. The ordinance is arbitrary and unfair on its face, and should be
I L:"i iGcd.
?. ^consistencies With Other Ordinances. SQct cn 17.17.C_0.°
.�� �r. ^
c,'dl�ar,CO has
nci been � =:" d &,o find where it conflicts %viih C,:.t-ern-,dnanCZG
:ay'Sn case Ci CQn'!' + •'1L£ more recWlC:ve prcv'a'On snarl Oreva".
.'.S:cam it :C, ; m
ibis prC'diSC:I 1h'CUId CLc'c'£, CoI :I I :C• ..
Ge
17.17.060 pLOhibit5 `fL'rniiU''£ or £GL'ipr�£tit" on rOcis. it says exceDl'C-s -1 Y
,• ^i„r
nr^.:"ded Only, ase enumnerated. Unenurneralled among the excep i •,C^S are ;rot's
II rs air conditioning and heatlrig equip- le^It, arch;eclural ,eai::res lire •:!dc'..
\A AI
o.lec Ci Preva,!_,
and oti-rets. Since the morer£str. , va_ prevision p
re<Ore be 0,chi'b hih
:,e0 wln the Cily cf San Luis Obispo.
ITh£ root provisions ci the Crc'nance demons:ra,Q i., !, ., :_ ... •
P-4 :he en,ire ordinance. R0%.1 mavens on a!b=r, Drive have ;neer nice h::rep
II2 j,, 8 i^ ^ vti'ilh Ot^er cCmm0ners, and dCr,'t have a hi!!iCp vie'%,. ~C'::re`.'er. I d0
ti a:, ,...n
f'ar'e frty rooftop, which affcrdS a pleasant prespeCi
over iriQ IanC•:CapQ. arcs:'n-a51f.
'i16S 0,'d:nance would prohibit me from taking a pair Of chairs and table up 10 11vLcl
r ,,I:o v n file view. !t would also NfClli'
Ori D S^ that 2 fiiend and I Cart i£iaX and enjoy h^ •o
°rcrn ha:'ing� a hydroponic Carden on my ro0f, which in the past IS SOt^Gl`1!•^•g I r_
` i' •G , ! f ing me to Sacri,ice such !:.ene`:'C'al aspeCtS
u0^e. :"Why? `'Y!iat s the c.:y's in: r2 t in c c
••,! \N-y zit anybody's business but 'line wh'al 1 do Cr pa Cn r')' rCC")
w y�
^'sira::s *,ine f Cra"c ,ar'shio and rarrow range ci ii:C: ^j^1. - C'---_
II
into Creai.'C ,his ordinance.
_. The :rC!-'bitiC:l c-n "visible storage or maintenance" is aC'sU'b. Unt-J._
) -
cai .::t� the fol:o.+ring (for example ,here are !pts more :,ass;t:e
^ho!s+er2d roc ;ng c' air on a front porch. (lilecal and r it:e CrCir.ar.0?.1
c. or Ur
.
I_
r. Cra Pard sculpture or cher emamenl ,!-:at Inc—p-rwas an Fi-Plar'c
under ,'' :e ordinance. 17.17.C=C.C.11
�i-; �''^.• -!G;:(;n Cf U"!v 6' "ail v,G iS ,hCi \r. �I �prl rig ..� a vi ..•� -
garbage cans is enforced. (In fact• how will the city deal with another ordinance
conflict: the homeowner, !ike myself, who has no place other than his front yard to
put his garbage can, but whose entire front yard is so close to the street that a 6' tall
fence itself would be illegal? I'd be screwed: illegal for having a garbage can visible:
also illegal for conforming to the ordinance's screening requirement!)
D. Storage of materials or tools needed for work in progress -- building a low
retaining wall, patio and fence, none of which require a building permit. (Illegal
under the ordinance 17.17.040.D.2.)
The homeowner who trims his trees on Saturday, but ,vhose trash Dile in the
driveway cannot be picked up by garbage until Friday (more than 72 hcurs ..
17.17.040.B.) (Illegal under the ordinance.)
F. Do-it-yourself projects that take more than 72 hours. (Illegal under the
ordinance.) (For example, I have a project to do when spring comes -- restoration cf
a wooden dome -- which must be done in my driveway. Knovi,ir.g the prc•cesses
involved -- gluing, using epoxy wood consolidants, filling, sanding, painting, etc., and
the sequencing of the work and the amount of time rewired for each material to
harden, I figured if l could work every day -- which is probably not possible -- it would
take a bare minimum of 268 hours to carry out the required processes - if nothing
unanticipated happened along the way. It would be illega! for me to undertake such
work under this ordinance because I'd only have 72 hours to corip!ete it legally.)
G. Barbecues in front of Valencia aparment units along Ramona Street, which
student residents have used and enjoyed for years. (Illegal under the ordinance -
17.17.040.A.)
NO ' staff falls back on t.,_
NOW. li the argL'men,t
that all Of the above arg;.'ment5 are
because the prohibitions are on "storage" and "maintenance," weJ. I'd like you to def;re
those terms. ;ire 2Il know that the PON mavens aren't going after people storing" sci'as
on roofs 0-I'Ou'ld anybody really store one there?), but against kids who out sofas on the
roof so they can sit there and drink beer. The ordinance pretends to be about 'storage,"
but it's one person's definition of storage" against another's. This entire sectionof
prohibitions is based on elite class-based taste preferences, and that is all. It is
wrong for the city to get involved in this sort of preferential legislation at the
home-occupant level.
4. Recreational Vehicles. Is there a single shred of evidence that the presence of
enrea Tonal vehic:es actually affects propery values? There is evidence that cihcr
L..;nos do like through traffic traversing neighborhoods. Why doesn't rRCIN tr to sc',.-e
real property value issues if that is their true interest? Because that isn't their tree
''.I"crest: interest tere
-•, ,ot is apparenlly in imposing their group taste preferer.c25 "per.
•r
i vs,,one else. The rec vehicle provision is a perfectly good example of ;r.is -- iu:'t
contrast the stereotypical image of a rec vehicle user with that of an RCN type.
7n conclus'on: The premise, content and execution of this proposed ordinance
stink. !t :•:!!I become an instrument of civic discord. Please put it out of its misery.
ri��nks.
lvC
r _ — ---
J ,
Ile
f
77
— r
I�
r-
RECEIVED
-----
-------- — -- --- — - - - COWAUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RECEIVED
FEB 231995
CRY SRN LUIS OBISPOQN CDt4Ml,U NRY DEVELOPMENOPMEN
T
RESIDENTS FOR QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS
P O Box 12601
San LWs Obispo CA 93406
February 23, 1995
Arnold Jonas, Director of Planning
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
Box 8100
San Luis Obispo; CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Jonas,
The Residents for Quality Neighborhoods expresses its
appreciation for the work that your staff has performed on
preparing the Planning Commission' s Staff Report on the
subject of the Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance.
We noted that Associate Planner Judith Lautner was .
responsible for the preparation of the document. Especially,
we feel that the sensitivity, thoughtfulness, logic, and
clarity of her evaluation of the primary elements of the
regulations was remarkable. She handled the complex issues
with style.
Sincerely,
Raymond Nord ist, Chair
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
FACETING AGENDA
�,,rE -;- ITEM #
RQN
RESIDENTS FOR QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS
P O Box 12604
San Luis Obispo CA 93406
March 4, 1995
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo^
From: Ray Nordquist, Glair
Residents For Quality Neighboods
Subject: Proposed Property Enhancement Standards
The Residents for Quality Neighborhoods basically supports
the City' s work on the Property Maintenance Standards and we
are looking forward to it' s implementation in the near
future.
Should the City Council determine that property maintenance
should apply to deterioration beyond the reasons of "health
and safety" , we submit the following for your consideration:
The ensuing conditions shall be deemed to be considered
unsightly and shall be subject to the abatement provisions of
this chapter:
A. Peeling and blistering paint such that the
conditions are plainly. visible from the centerline of
the street. This section shall apply to any accessory
structures as well.
B. Broken windows, damaged woodwork, damaged stucco or
other wall surfaces — including but not limited to
damaged brickwork or stonework — such that the damages
are plainly visible from the centerline of the street.
C. Damaged doors, windows, screens, roof and rooftop
appurtenances such that the damaged conditions are
plainly visible from the centerline of the street.
_ NCIL Eff CDD DIR
GAO ❑ FIN DIR
�A� ❑ FIRE CHIEF
� MEy [3 PW DIR
C, ❑ POLICE CHF
RECEIVED ,❑ ��ue ❑ RECDIR
MAR 6 19`15 o C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
!, �/ ❑ PERS DIR
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA
MEETING AGENDA
DATE cf 7— _ITEM #
ol
IMP RTANT`M,ESSAGE`
FOR g'
DATE TIME �� M•
M .
OF
PHONE ..NUMBER:: EXTENSION
AREA CODE
❑ FAX
❑ MOBILE
AREA CODE +�foRJMBER; `TIME:TO CALL'
TELEPHONED'
' 3' ILL,CALLAGAINT
CAME TO SEEYOU
... .. .y v' f'1'.•�.:npy.� 1 Y�t tY'-.Iflti
WANTS TO SEEYOU
RETURNED YOUR C L' , '.•';:... . •., .�^,.�..
MESSA E' i•
SIGNE
TOPS �ITTHO N U..6 A —
To: San Luis Obispo City Councilmembers
My name is Greg Martin , I have lived in San Luis Obispo all my
life , born and raised , as well as both my parents . I hope to raise
both my sons here . I am 44 years old and work at Diablo Caynon.
Both my parents are stiil residing here at 496 Pisno st. where
they keep their motorhome in their driveway. I reside at 363 High st
where I keep both my motor home and my boat in my driveway.
We are property owners and feel it is not the place of any
goverment agency to dictate to us what we can and can't store on our
property., as long as it is not a saftey or health concern.
I care about the quality of my surrondings and do support the
measure as amended by the planning commission. I don't want
couches on my roof, my roof was not built to support a couch.
However I certainly wish to park my motor home or my boat in my
driveway, after all thats why my driveway is there.
I have a 1991 Ford P/U , 1986 aerostar van,1979 Ford motor
home , and a 17 1/2 foot outboard boat. I only have a one car garage
but I can place my boat , motorhome,and van in my drivway without
blocking any part of the side walk. In fact my boat and motorhome
will fit in the driveway and be flush with the front of my house.
I hope good sense will prevail and you adopt the amendment
that allows only currently and properly registered vehicles to park in
driveways.
I regret to say this but I think we , the common people do not
understand how local goverment works. I only found out about this
through a friend and stumbled through the process as best I could. I
think I could have garnered more support had I known the system
better. I would ,however , like to thank you for allowing me the
chance to particpate and try to make things better.
Greg Martin
363 high st .
San Luis Obispo, Cal.
93401
1411ETING AGENDA
DATE J-7-fY ITEM #
March 3, 1995 RECEIVED
MAR 0 7 1995
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
San Luis Obispo City Council:
I can't believe that you would even consider an ordinance that would tell
me how to park my motor home or boat or cars on my personal property!
In case you have forgotten I own that property, pay taxes on it, and have
spent a lot of time and money keeping it attractive for 18 years!
It would be very difficult and ugly to try to retrofit my home to hide my
motor home, etc. I have a huge back yard, but it is impossible to get the
motor home or boat back there.
if you want me to cover my driveway with a garage out to the sidewalk,
show me a decent esthetic design, pleasing to our neighbors, wave all
permit fees, and give me a Ono-interest" 30 year loan to construct it' Or, if
the city would like to buy the land, build a RV storage area and furnish
security for all SLO residents at no charge, we could consider that option'.
Essentially, the City is already too intrusive in our lives! We are tired of
your mandates that cost us money, frustration, and feeling of
helplessness. Don't become arrogant and drunk with power! Be
intelligent, reasonable, and responsible to the people who elected you!
Please don't hire another consultant to advise you! You know what a
consultant is? That's a person from out of town with a carousel of slides
and graphs that charges fees) his hometown would nail him to the wall
for 4 !
Don' waste valuable time debating such a selfish and thoughtless
ordinance!
Sincerely,
IT COUNCIL
ICAO 0 FIN DIR
QVACA0 C3 FIRE CHIEF
CDD
DIR
N DIR
RE CHIEF
DIR
LICE CHF
I
0 F11
0 F1
Dr. H. W. Scholz, Jr. !�!TrORNEY 0 PW DIR
9 LEWJMG 0 POLICE CHF
13 M1110ITTEA9 13
0 RECIDIR
UT
L I
0 C READ FILE 0 UTn1L DIR
0 E3
PERS DIR
................
�Aofxnrb X. j%chatz, Tr., lu-p-Ji-I 411-11- 131m. -1422 Monterey street,Suite C-200-San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-(805)541-2575—
LIA 6 E ITEM #
----- .. �`"✓� ,L /_'1: �_ _, C'y•C__ `:jam; ;- .mac/=c��L� .J�'�6G? -'�.,�c"�(�
-- _
tea• �, ,- , .____ -. . .__ _ ... . ._ ----. _ .. - -- ._......_.. .-- ----- ----.._._
• �� '._/tel j_ _
i/
,
_ 0 NCIL DD DIR
DCAo. ... - ❑ FIN DIR -� - ✓ � �y -
ACAO' ❑ FIRE CHIEF f'� Cl c_ _-- - - - -- --- --
TTORNEY - Q PW DIR—
- RF . D
CLERKMG ❑ POLICE CHF i' J *r_��z . ..%<<G' .._ C �-- V-
- 0 MGMT TEAM.. Q REC DIR---
��ti. 7 1995
Q C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR - �0R
- --.. . . Q PERS DiR-
--- --
CITY CLERK
-- -- --- -- - -- - - SAN LUIS OBISPO-G!, ---
ts.
MEETING AGENDA
: EZ&_S: #
RICHARD SCHMIDTrW
woo �
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, (805) 4
9JOIR
March 5, 1995 f0?
f Mi TEAM ®
Re:Property Maintenance Regulations, March 7 agenda ® 6 REA6 FU 13
Q
To the City Council:
There are major problems with proposed code Chapter 17.17,and I urge you not to enact it Into law.
The proposed ordinance is an intrusion of government police power into the private lives of citizens. It is"government on
our backs"in a big way. It establishes a methodology for the systematic harassment of honest,well-intentioned, non-
affluent and otherwise law-abiding citizens like myself. It is class-based law and therefore both bad law and bad public
policy. Please don't adopt it.San Luis Obispo doesn't need this sort of governmental interference in private affairs.
Nothing proscribed by the proposed ordinance is sufficiently significant or harmful to merit this unleashing of the city's
police powers upon unsuspecting citizens.
Also,from a technical standpoint,the ordinance is drafted from a large-lot suburban-sprawl point of view. It may therefore
be easy for the elitist homeowners who are behind it to conform to,but it is very difficult, If not impossible,for those of us
who live on confined narrow lots in older parts of town to conform to, let alone live comfortably with. In particular,the
screening requirements are impossible for many, including myself,to meet. In this sense,the proposal is divisive and
inconsiderate of the needs and realities of many.SLO residents. Again, because of this, I urge you not to enact this
ordinance,for it is discriminatory.
Some specific concerns (in sequence in ordinance):
i "More restrictive provision prevails"(section 17.17.020.6).Why write ordinances that conflict with other ordinances?
3 to the point,does the Council understand the implications of this provision?As originally written by staff,this
orcinance would have prohibited the roof-top installation of HVAC equipment! I pointed that out, and it was modified.
However, Section 17.17.060 still prohibits solar collectors.What else might it also unintentionally prohibit? Remember,
when the"more restrictive provision prevails,"what's allowed elsewhere in the code can be overruled by what 17.17
prohibits.This approach is bad lawmaking and bad policy-making.
2. Screening of"storage"with 6'fence. (17.17.040) Does the city really want to promote proliferation of 6'tall fences in
front yards? Have you noted the recent wood fences along Chorro from the freeway to Foothill?Talk about ugly!What's
the point of requiring more of this ugliness?
3. Furniture and equipment. (17.17.040.A) Among other things,this section prohibits soft furniture on front porches
(visible from street). Is that desirable? Is ft consistent with the General Plan? Is ft consistent with encouraging
neighborliness?
This section presents those of us who live in older, less-affluent sections of SLO with a lose/lose situation. For example, I
have no place to put my garbage can other than in my front yard.The city's existing code prohibits 6'tall fences within
street yards,but the new section would fine me$500 for having a front yard garbage can not shielded by a 6'fence. So,
what am I supposed to do?This regulation was cooked up by elitists with toruses on large lots where such space
constraints don't exist. ft may work in suburbia,but for many SLO citizens besides myself,the entire screening section
(17.17.040) reduces in a major way what we can do on our properties and how we can live.
4. Materials. (17.17.040.B) Is it really the city's intent to prohibit firewood storage in driveways?Who is harmed by the
presence of a pile of firewood,or, for that matter,of any of the other listed"materials?"
5. Materials. (17.17.040.D.2)Why is an exception allowed only for construction"with a valid building permit?" Many types
instruction require no permit.Why the elitist approach? If the council opts for regulating nmleul I S1
uwesn't, at least make a blanket exemption for any kind of construction-in-progress. RE`t'V (�
MAR 6 1995
Clrr COUNCIL
Sara oris OBISPO,Q
6. Repairs. (17.17.040.D.3) What is sacred about repairs being completed in 72 hourb. , have no other place than my
driveway to do many repair projects,and frequently of necessity they must take more than 72 hours to complete.Again,
this is an elitist approach. Some people can't afford to pay others do their work for them elsewhere;others prefer to do
their own work.Whose business is it how long repairs take?What harm is done by projects that take longer?
7. Roofs. (17.17.060)This is one of the ordinance's most blatant efforts to regulate lifestyle. If I have a flat roof and enjoy
sleeping there,who is hurt by that?Why should I be prevented from so doing?Why should I be fined$500 lt 1 persist?
Note:the prohibition applies to all roofs, not just those visible from streets.
We all know what this provision is aimed at:college boys who like to sit on the roof,drink beer,and whistle at passing
girls.Why should a group of uptight elitists be allowed to enlist the city's police powers to interfere with somebody else's
harmless fun?
S. Fences. (17.17.070) 1 am a licensed architect;although the State of Caldomia recognizes me as a structural expert, I
have no idea what this ordinance means by fencing materials and support being "structural sound."Do you? Leaning,
loose,fallen, broken,decayed,weather-beaten,warped,or what?Not all of the above are"structural"issues,but it's
unclear which,according to the ordinance,are and which aren't.This type of vague wording is subject to many
interpretations—there is no way to recognize what any particular code enforcement officer's interpretation may be in
advance of issuance of a citation.
Also,the section criminalizes having any fence,agMhere on one's property,with"missing material.0 What does that
mean? A popped nail is"missing material."A grape stake fence with one dislodged stick is"missing material."A$500 fine
for one missing grape stake? Is this for real?
9. Civil liberties Infringements.A central tenet of just and decent law is that a potential offender know clearly in advance
that a certain act is an infraction of the law. That is impossible with the proposed ordinance,for it is vague (even though it
seems at first reading to be specific) and is full of provisions we know will be enforced only%vhh interpretation."Examples:
the fence provisions,the storage provisions. It becomes impossible under such an ordinance for a person to know with
certainty in advance of citation that a particular act or omission will be deemed a violation.All enforcement therefore
becomes arbitrary and unpredictable, a function of the interpretation of a particular civil servant rather than a function of
having committed a clear violation. This is the sort of law that becomes an instrument of harassment, not an instrument of
fairness or justice.
Alternatively,the ordinance may be enforced strictly. In this case, any violation of the text, no matter how petty, subjects
someone to a$500 fine. This is consistent with Section 17.17.060.B:"Any person who violates any provision of this
chapter;h(be guilty of an infraction"(What ever happened to the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven?)
I hope you agree that neither of these outcomes is desirable or good. Such a law should simply not be enacted in the first
place.
10. Harassment potential. I am particularly sensitive to this issue because I have been subjected already to insistent
harassment by RON making dubious use of existing city ordinances for elitist campaigns against fellow citizens. (I would
be happy to discuss this experience with any of you individually.) From that experience, 1 believe the following will happen
If this ordinance is enacted:
A. A plethora of petty complaints will be filed.
B. The various city enforcement officers--community development and police both get involved in this sort of thing--
will interpret the ordinance however they please, and there will be no consistency. (This has already been my
experience--with one department saying, in effect,the other was out to lunch.)
C. Arming RON with this ordinance will license them to ride herd on enforcement officers until complaints are
"resolved."
D. Enforcement officers,to rid themselves of this pest,will hound and harass citizens mercilessly. In the process,
much anger will be generated among the citizenry, much injustice will be perpetrated, and many will be denied the
decency of being allowed by government to simply do their own harmless thing.
E.The net result will be a diminution, not an improvement, of SLO's overall quality of life.
Again, I respectfully request th ou not enact the new code chapter 17.17. There is very little in it with redeeming value,
and very much that is bad.
February 28, 1995
Mayor Allen Settle MEETING AGENDA
DATE J� 7 9s ITEM #=_
San Luis Obispo City Hall
Dear Mayor Settle:
My name is Dean Kinneavy and I have resided at 265 Broad Street in San Luis
Obispo for 49 years now.
It has come to my attention that your board will be considering a request on
March 7th, to ban or limit parking of RV's on personal property at the request of the
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods.
Let me say up front that I have no quarrel with the RQN and think they have an
admirable cause in most respects. However, I must disagree with them on this point, at
least. And for several reasons, some of which are:
I) To severely limit or ban my right to park my motor home on my personal
property would be a frightening infringement upon my personal property
rights.
2) Neglecting the fact that is quite expensive to store your RV in an RV
storage lot and that if all the local RV owners had to store them away
from their personal property there would not be enough local storage
available.
3) Security is a big factor in public storage. I have heard of more than one
owner whose motor home has been vandalized in public storage. Most
motorhomes today have an average cost of $50,000 or better which is a
lot to risk when I don't even feel it is necessary.
4) One of the main reasons I own and enjoy my motorhome is for the
freedom it gives me to use it on frequent trips without having to do a lot
of advance planning.
My lot has nearly 30,000 square foot of area and I park my motorhome more
that 100 feet from the street right-of-way so as to be as responsible as I can and still
enjoy the use of my investment.
I noticed that Ms. Naomi Wright, writing in favor of RQN in the viewpoint section
of the Telegram-Tribune continuously talked about motorhomes stored in front
driveways all year long, devaluing neighbors property by creating a virtual garbage
dump. I appreciate and applaud her concern for her neighborhood but dispute her
assertion that motorhomes are contributing to the problem. In a few cases, there are
probably unsightly motorhomes stored on unsightly lots, but I would bet that if you
moved the motorhome you would still have an unsightly lot! I stress that most RV
owners are quite reasonable and responsible citizens and ask for your consideration in
ntiph maintaining the status quo in regard to motorhome storage.
ar COUNCIL CDD DIR
ecoU ❑ FIN DIR Sincerely yours,
tin ❑ FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED,
d TTORNEy ❑ PW DIR FEB 1 8 1995.
VLERWORI6 ❑ POLICE CHF Dean Kinneavy
❑ MGMTTEAMi ❑ REC DIR CITY COUNCIL'
❑ C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR 'RAN u 1 c n c310 PO,
0 PERS DIR
3489 Sequoia Dr .
"'�"` .a=�+�+-*•`' San Luis Obispo,Ca.93401
MEETING AGENDA� March 2, 1995
DATE IZIS-
Councisl Members
City of San Luis Obispo, Ca.
Dear Members:
We have owned and enjoyed our recreational
vehicles for the past twenty or more years.
We have always been fortunate in being able
to Dark them in our adequate driveways mak-
ing it very convenient for us. We have also
prided ourselves in keeping them well main-
tained and certainly not an eyesore. We
have never received a complaint from any
of the areas in which we have lived .
We sincerely request that you accept the
Planning Commission ' s decision at their
Feb. 8th meeting to continue allowing us
to park our recreation vehicle in our
driveway.
Sincerely, nn
s�
Deter Guernsey
F
DD DIR
O RN DIR
O PW DIR
1 OPOUCECHFWTEAJW O REG DIR
13
V+�
° I„ILDIR RECEIVED
O PERS DIR
MAR 3 1995
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
10EETIN AGENDA Z
ITE "�� ITEM #
1537 La Cita Court
San Luis Obispo CA 9 401
March 3, 1995ouNCll ]RECDIR
R
City of San Luis Obispo �Ao
City Hall /.r.�►o IEF
990 Palm Street �TTORNEY
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 MGVr TEAORIGM
CHF
P ❑ MGMf TEAM R1R FILE RCouncilman Dave Romero: IR
Having lived on and off in San Luis Obispo since 1947, 1 have seen many
changes. What is being proposed to our city today seems to indicate that a few
elitists are controlling the majority of the resident taxpayers. To accommodate a
very few bicyclists, parking has been removed, and weird striping configurations
have been placed along the streets. These actions further congest our already
overcrowded streets and eliminate street parking on residential streets. Yes, we
would not have crowded streets if everyone biked to work and to the grocery
store. Get real - that's not going to happen! By the way, have you noticed that
it is the exception rather than the rule when bicyclists obey traffic laws? (So
motorists and pedestrians beware!)
Now comes the possibility of not being able to park a RV in our own driveway.
assume that the color of my house will be next. You were elected to run the city
not take away the rights of citizens who live here and pay the taxes. If I wanted
to live in a restricted rule-bound community I would move to an already existing
one. This city should not be made into that type of community. You should not
make rules to suit only the elitist residents of this city. Many of us like San Luis
Obispo as it was, not as it is envisioned, a sterile snobbish community run by a
few cliquish people. Leave us alone! You keep asking for more police, for what,
yard patrol or law enforcement?
Sincerely, p
Newman J. Whitmire RECEIVE
MAR 7 199
CITY COUNCIL
RAN 11110 r%RIRPO. C,
If FETING AGENDA
DATE '�'9s ITEM #
March 7, 1995
790 Islay St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Mayor and City Coun(til
San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Council Members:
From what I read in the Telegram-Tribune, you will this evening be considering
legislation that if passed would deprive my husband of his long-standing hobby
of car improvement. As an automobile hobbyist, my husband owns three (at this
time) old cars, on which he works intermittently, doing engine work, body work
and interior restoration. He began this hobby as a high school student in his
parents' driveway in Silver Lake, Ohio, and has continued it in driveways in
Oregon, Arizona and Minnesota.
My understanding of the proposed ordinance is that if this work were not completed
within 72 hours, it would be considered illegal. Seventy-two hours is meaningless
to a car hobbyist, and even 72 days would be too short a period. In fact, I
suspect that the true goal of the hobbyist is never to complete a project
totally!
You have not proposed to make golfing, tennis, or model train construction
iiiegal. Please do not do so with this hobby, enjoyed by my husband and many
other citizens of San Luis Obispo.
Removing couches from the roof is one thing, but depriving a person of .his
life-long hobby would amount to, in my opinion, an abuse of power.
Thank you for your consideration.
V
}el'�y y
e, k
Valerie Endres
COUNCIL CDD DIR
��� F.� �AO ❑ FIN DIR
fl 7 �"� O ❑ FIRE CHIEF
�AR E ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
�CLERKKAIa 13 POLICE CHF
CITY CLERK E3MGMT TEAM E3REC DIR
SAN LUIS OgISPO.CA
E R FILE O UTIL DIR
0 PERS DIR
�'EETING AGENDA
SATE- ITEM # 2.,67
5A
Liao
AV
j
<�
r
G � G
rAC CDD DIR❑ FlN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF❑ PO aEe4t,�LLt�i�i�❑ rr rFAM o REEC o R CEIVED ""`ten v - nn t�
o FJLE_. Cl unLaR FEB %17 1995
b PERS 01R ,/
snN ITY COq con rA (/ �1/,-,�..2,� / 3 / z
f-
B-4 Friday,January 27, 1995
San Lui9 Obispo County(Calif.) TELEGRAM- --
- TRIDUNE'„
Letters to the- editor
Don't throw the RV out ..
with the bathwater
To the editor.
The proposed property maintenance regula-
tions for the city of San Luis Obispo have me'quite
concerned.
The same regulations are lumping clutter,
debris, trash and RVs into,the same category.
Granted,.no one who has any pride in his property.'
would advocate the placing of old furniture, used .
refrigerators,garbage or debris in his front yard.
However,I cannot see the correlation between
the aforementioned items and RVs. Most RVs are
priced in the five- or six-digit category and cost
more than many houses. We RVers are proud of
our equipment 'and our homes and. would do
nothing to devalue either one.
If a person has a well-defined parking area, is
not obstructing visibility and is in a safe location,
why can't the RV stay there?
I cannot argue with prohibiting living In RVs
,in
your yard or parking their.for long periods vn city
streets. However, the prohibition of parking on
one's own property.when there is no problem of
health, safety or welfare is a violation of.constitu- ;.
tional rights:
I urge interested citizens to contact the San
Luis Obispo Planning Commission as well as the .
City Council and request that these regulations not.'.
be adopted in their present format:"
Ernest G.Tripke
San Luis Obispo