HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/2002, PH1 - CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT UPDATE THE CITY'S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE council
j Agenda RepoRt N. �
CITY OF SAN LU I S O B 1 S P 0
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
THAT UPDATE THE CITY'S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS
(TA/ER 134-01).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission and Neighborhood Services Team:
1. Approve a resolution amending the amount of the civil penalties for parking in yard
violations.
2. Introduce an ordinance to print amending and adding sections of the Municipal Code for
the purpose of improving the visual character, quality of life and safety within
neighborhoods and adopting a Negative Declaration of environmental impact(ER 134-01).
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Address: No specific address
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning: Regulations affect all zones
General Plan: All Land Use Element designations
Environmental status: On December 10, 2001, the Deputy Director of Community Development
approved a negative declaration of environmental impact(ER 134-01)
Situation
The Neighborhood Services Team regularly holds meetings with representatives from Residents
for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) to discuss matters of mutual interest, improve
communications with neighborhood groups and raise awareness of neighborhood issues. The
Neighborhood Services Team is made up of representatives of various city departments and
representatives from RQN. During these meetings RQN proposed a set of changes to various
City ordinances, including the Zoning Regulations. Community Development Department staff
and members of the Neighborhood Services Team reviewed the recommendations, provided
specific analysis and feedback to RQN, and eventually all the parties mutually agreed upon a
package of proposed amendments.
l- I
Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 134-01
April 2,2002
Page 2
Proposed Amendments
The amendments involve ininor modifications and additions to the City's Municipal Code. Items
1-4 were considered in the Planning Commission's action, items 5-9 are not within the Planning
Commission's jurisdiction, and therefore, were not considered in their action.
1. Section 2.48.170.A-Garage Conversion Regulations
This section has been modified to expand the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission
to include the conversion of any required covered parking space for single-family dwellings to
maintain and improve the qualities of, and relationships between, individual dwellings, structures
and physical developments in such a manner as to best contribute to the amenities and
attractiveness of the neighborhoods.
2. Section 17.17.050-Front Yard Paving
This section has been modified to require that exceptions to the front yard paving standard shall
require approval of an Administrative Use Permit with the finding that the proposed paving be
compatible with the neighborhood.
3. Section 17.17.075-Neighborhood Preservation
This section has been added to chapter 17.17 (Property Maintenance Standards), which provides
for standards that regulate the appearance, condition and safety of structures, equipment and
improvements on private property. One area that received a lot of attention during the drafting of
the ordinance was the regulation of overgrown and dead vegetation. While not wanting to regulate
the height to which people mow their lawns, the Neighborhood Services Team still felt that it was
important for the City to have the ability to address properties that are clearly a nuisance.
Subsection 5 was therefore carefully written to address truly nuisance situations rather than cases
where someone may have failed to mow their lawn for a few weeks.
4. Section 17.17.080.A&B-Prohibited Acts
This section has been modified to state that violations of Sections 17.17.040, 17.17.050, 17.17.060,
17.17.070 or 17.17.075 of this chapter shall constitute an infraction violation of the Municipal
Code.
5. 308.4- Storage of solid waste containers
The proposed addition to the Uniform Administrative Code will establish standards for the
screening of trash containers in residential neighborhoods. The standards will apply to the
construction of new single-family and duplex dwellings submitted for a building permit after the
effective date of the proposed ordinance. The minimum size of the storage area is adequate to
contain three of the largest waste-wheelers provided by the local solid—waste collection
company, accommodating trash, recycle materials, and green waste. The proposed standards
�^ a
Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 134-01
April 2,2002
Page 3
are intended to prevent passers-by in the street right-of-way from viewing the waste-wheelers,
thereby helping to maintain a quality neighborhood appearance.
6. Section 10.36.170 - Designation of residential parking permit areas - Adoption of
resolution
This section of the code has been modified to incorporate stronger language so the Council
"should" act upon resident requests to establish new parking districts if the Council finds the
area to be predominantly residential and impacted with vehicles, supported by a (67%) majority
of the affected residents or necessary in order to preserve the quality of life of persons in the
residing neighborhood. This change would still allow the Council to make an independent
decision based on the merits of the request, rather than be a direct mandate to implement a
proposed residential district.
7. 10.36.180-Designation of residential parking permit areas- Content of resolution
This section of the code has been modified to ensure that a larger majority of affected residents
than the current 51% requirement support the resolution for establishing a residential parking
permit district. Although past petitions received for creating all current parking districts have
met the proposed 67% requirement, the inclusion of the super majority requirement will insure
that the neighborhood truly supports the proposed district and is willing to accept the
restrictions that are imposed when a new district is established.
8. 10.36.232—Enforcement(Residential.Parking Districts)
This section of the code has been modified to take a `proactive" approach to neighborhood
enforcement. It requires that enforcement must be done on a regular and routine basis when
sufficient staff is available for patrol. It should be noted that under current staffing levels, the
City cannot guarantee that regular and routine enforcement in the residential districts will be
accomplished during the daytime.
9. Civil Penalty Fine Increase for Parking In Yard Violations
Staff is recommending a $35 fine would be more appropriate and would be consistent with our
current fine for prohibited parking violations levied elsewhere in the city. The fine increase
would require adopting a new resolution establishing the parking in yard violation at$35.00 and
is included as part of the staff recommendation.
General Plan Consistency
The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1) contains an analysis of Community Goals
and General Plan Programs related to the Conservation and Development of Residential
Neighborhoods. It concludes that 1) the proposed text amendments and other changes to City
regulations are consistent with community goals that call for the preservation of existing
neighborhoods and compatibility of new development; 2) the text amendments implement
/-
Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 134-01
April 2,2002
Page 4
programs related to the periodic review and update of property-development standards, which
focuses on improving the visual character of neighborhoods.
Planning Commission Action
On January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission voted six to one (Commissioner Caruso
opposed) to recommend that the City Council approve the negative declaration and adopt the text
amendments, with modifications. Only changes to the Zoning Regulations were reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission staff report, minutes and revised legislative
draft are attached(Attachments 1,2 & 3).
The primary modifications made by the Commission were to eliminate proposed changes to
Municipal Code Chapter 12.38.050.0 (Parking and Driveway Standards) and Chapter
17.16.020.D.7 (Property Development Standards), which would prohibit unenclosed tandem
parking within required street yards. The Commission is recommending that these sections be
deleted based on the finding that special circumstances occasionally warrant unenclosed tandem
parking to be located within street yards. If the Council finds that these sections should be
included with the proposed text amendments, appropriate language is included in the legislative
draft section of Attachment 1.
At the public hearing, the Commission also formulated modifications to the Neighborhood
Preservation and Prohibited Acts sections. The Planning Commission modified Section
17.17.075 (1) & (5) (Neighborhood Preservation Standards) to strengthen the proposed language.
The Commission felt that the language for these sections was somewhat confusing and unclear.
Staff has developed a further revision (highlighted below) that is consistent with the
Commission's intent but further clarifies and expands the code section. The Council should
review this language and decide whether this alternative should be incorporated into the
proposed Ordinance (Attachment 7).
'Buildings which are abandoned, partially destroyed or damaged or left in an unreasonable state
of partial construction, whose owners have been notified by the City that the property has been
determined to be in violation of this section. An abandoned building means any building or
structure which is not occupied, used or secured for a period of one (1) year or more. A partially
destroyed or damaged building means any building or structure in which 25% or more of the
structure has been destroyed or damaged and not repaired or replaced for a period of one(1) year,
or more. An unreasonable state of partial construction is defined as any imfnished building or,
I that has been in the course of constriction for two (2) years or more, and the condition
of'said unfinished building or structure or accumulation of construction materials substantially
detracts from the appearance of theimmediate neighborhood"
The Commission also modified Chapter 17.17.080.13 (Prohibited Acts) to include violations of
Section 17.17.075 as an infraction of the Municipal Code rather than a misdemeanor. The
Commission felt that a violation of the Neighborhood Preservation Standards section did not
warrant a misdemeanor given the penalties associated with such a violation.
I
a
Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 134-01
April 2,2002
Page 5
General Enforcement Strategy
Most of the items outlined in this package come under the jurisdiction of the Community
Development Department, Building & Safety Division and Code Enforcement Coordinator. It is
believed that these cases will be handled on a complaint basis or in conjunction with other
investigations. Building inspectors would do the initial inspection of the site to determine the
validity of the complaint and issue a 72 hour notice to correct, followed by a letter(s) to the
owner of record and in the event of non-compliance, the City Attorney. SNAP teams from the
Police Department's Office of Neighborhood Services would do limited proactive enforcement
of the parking on lawn and may assist as time allows in neighborhood preservation. With the
exception of parking tickets, no change to a direct citation prosecution is recommended at this
time.
CONCURRENCES
The following departments represented on the Neighborhood Services Team have reviewed the
text amendments: Community Development Department, Police, Public Works, Administration
and the City Attorney's Office. RQN and the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC)
have also approved the proposed text amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impacts are anticipated as a result of these amendments.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council could deny the text amendments, if it finds that the modifications
would be inconsistent with the General Plan or other policy documents.
2. The City Council may modify, enhance or clarify the text amendments (such as language
contained in the Planning Commission Action section above or possible addition of
tandem parking amendments, as recommended by RQN).
3. The City Council may continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission staff report
2. Planning Commission minutes
3. Revised Text Amendments (Legislative Draft)
4. Planning Commission Resolution 5330-02
5. Initial Study
6. Draft resolution approving the parking-in-yard penalty
7. Draft ordinance introducing the Text Amendments
1-5
Attachment 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1
BY: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician (781-7169) DATE: January 23, 2002
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development
FILE NUMBER: TA 134-01
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
SUBJECT: Amendments to Municipal Code Regulations associated with Parking and
Driveway Standards, Property Development Standards, Prohibited Acts and Garage Conversion
Regulations.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of environmental impact
(ER 134-01) and adopt the proposed text amendments, as submitted.
BACKGROUND
Situation
In. the on-going efforts to improve and update the City's Municipal Code Regulations, the
Neighborhood Services team has conducted multiple meetings with representatives from RQN
(Residents for Quality Neighborhoods) to discuss matters of mutual interest, improve
communications with neighborhood groups and raise awareness of neighborhood issues among
City departments. During these meetings RQN proposed a set of changes to various City
ordinances, including Zoning Regulations. Community Development Department staff and
members of the Neighborhood Services Team reviewed the recommendations, provided specific
analysis and feedback to RQN, and mutually agreed upon the proposed amendments included in
the legislative draft (attachment 1).
Data Summary
Address: No specific address
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning: Regulations affect all zones
General Plan: All Land Use Element designations
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration was approved by the Deputy Director on
December 10, 2001 (ER 134-01)
Project action deadline: Legislative actions are not subject to processing deadlines.
Project Description
The project involves minor modifications to parking and driveway standards, property
development standards, prohibited acts, garage conversion regulations and the addition of
Neighborhood Preservation Standards to chapter 17.17 (attachment 1).
1v4
Attachment 1
TA 134-01 (City of San L, _ Obispo)
Citywide
Page 2
The intent of these text amendments is to clarify tandem parking within street yards, require an
Administrative Use Permit for exceptions to front yard paving requirements, provide
neighborhood preservation standards, expand the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review
Commission to include review of single-family dwellings for the conversion of required covered
parking and clarify legal action for violations to property maintenance standard sections
17.17.040, 17.17.050, 17.17.060, 17.17.070 and 17.17.075.
EVALUATION
The purpose of the proposed text amendments is to improve the visual character, quality of life and
safety within neighborhoods. A brief description of the proposed changes are described as follows:
Section 12.38.050.0 and 17.16.020.D.7 — Parking and Driveway Standards/Property Development
Standards
These sections of the code have been modified to eliminate language that allows unenclosed
tandem parking within the required street yard, therefore improving the visual appearance of yards
as viewed from the street. Yards are intended to help provide landscape beauty, air circulation,
views and exposure to sunlight.
Section 17.17.050—Front Yard Paving
This section has been modified to require that exceptions to the front yard paving standard shall
require approval of an Administrative Use Permit with the finding that the proposed paving be
compatible with the neighborhood.
Section 17.17.075—Neighborhood Preservation
This section has been added to chapter 17.17 (Property Maintenance Standards), which provides
for standards that regulate the appearance, condition and safety of structures, equipment and
improvements on private property.
Section 17.17.080.A&B—Prohibited Acts
This section has been modified to state that violations of Sections 17.17.040, 1717.050, 1717.060,
or 17.17.070 of this chapter shall constitute an infraction violation of the Municipal Code. Any
person who violates Section 17.17.075 shall constitute a misdemeanor violation of the Municipal
Code.
Section 2.48.170.A—Garage Conversion Regulations
This section has been modified to expand the jurisdiction of the.Architectural Review Commission
to include the conversion of any required covered parking space for single-family dwellings to
maintain and improve the qualities of, and relationships between, individual dwellings, structures
and physical developments in such a manner as to best contribute to the amenities and
attractiveness of the neighborhoods.
TA 134-01 (City of San LL.� Obispo) Attachment 1
Citywide
Page 3
Single-family dwellings are reviewed for architectural compatibility with the site and surrounding
neighborhood prior to building permit issuance. When garages are later converted into living
space, new covered parking can appear to be "tacked on" to the site and detract from the visual
character established for the neighborhood.
General Plan Consistency
Community Goal No. 29, the Land Use Element states, "Maintain existing neighborhoods and
assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern."
The proposed text amendments help implement the above stated Community Goal as well as
General Plan Program 2.10.1 and 2.10.2 of the Land Use Element.
Program 2.10.1 of the Land Use Element states, "The City will review, revise if deemed desirable,
and enforce noise, parking, and property-development standards. Staff to adequately enforce these
standards will be provided." The proposed text amendments have been reviewed, revised and
mutually agreed upon by representatives from RQN, the Neighborhood Services Team and the
Community Development Department.
Program 2.10.2 of the Land Use Element states, "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 current text amendments are part of the periodic review and update of property-
maintenance regulations and focus on improving the visual character of neighborhoods.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The text amendments were distributed to the City Attorney's Office, the Neighborhood Services
Manager, and other City Departments. The text amendments have been modified to include their
comments.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of environmental impact
(ER 134-01) and adopt the proposed text amendments, as submitted, based on findings included
in the attached Planning Commission Resolution (attachment 3).
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the text amendments, based on a
finding that modifications would be inconsistent with the General Plan and/or other policy
documents.
2. The Planning Commission may continue action, if additional information is needed.
Direction should be given to staff.
l- 8'
TA 134-01 (City of San L,_;Obispo)
Attachment 1
Citywide
Page 4
Attachments:
1. Text Amendments (Legislative Draft)
3. Planning Commission Resolution
/_q
Attachment 1
Chapter 12.38 —Parking and Driveway Standards
12.38.050 Geometrics and design standards.
C. Tandem Parking. Residential uses may have required spaces arranged in tandem subject to the
approval of the community development director. Single dwellings where tmde'" :
(refer to Section
17.16.020 of this code).
Chapter 17.16—Property Development Standards
17.16.020 Yards.
D. What May Occupy Yards.
6. Unenclosed Parking Spaces in Other Yards. Unenclosed parking spaces and parking aisles may
be located within other yards.
7 U 1 .7 Tandem D 1 b SY Psingle 1,dwellingso tandeEn k .7
: .;.i
8.M Enclosed Parking Spaces in Street Yard Prohibited. In no case may an enclosed parking
space from which vehicles exit directly onto the street be located less than twenty feet from the
street right-of--way or setback line. In a flag lot subdivision, this setback requirement shall apply
to the access roadway.
Chamer 17.17—Property Maintenance Standards
17.17.050 Front yard paving.
No more than fifty percent of any residential front yard (see definition of "front yard"), not to
exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width, may be covered by concrete or other impervious material,
including driveways, patio areas, walkways, and other landscape features. hex-art
ce on
can - e e o ` the proposed
paving wifl be compatible with the neighborhood.
JIM
+ e s
an o
e e a o m di oun a e n
g.,• ' dings., "'e `.are andoned; "'all, � `" •; a .o" a unreaso . ,state o : artt
-o str�z on. n ona e s � ,any ' din o e �a
.e o ns . c o o ears or more o 'd unfinish
utl ' <=o c e or cc a _ -onstruc n • s sfian de ets om th'e
.tx
L
Legislative Draft - Neighb,. _ .00d Enhancement Ordinance II �� Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2
finedr e ace orr`t��� �d.�a` nn'eii'Yp sive,,,, vermg<,e7t eedtng 25°Ia�o
e�extor surface area; 1ctdtoitetto;c1uPPng,�`ruilmg„clam ed'or mtss�n
r z
�;"k;��terr!li��<suil'aces,"1 clii� ' ftts' t5ai � .� rs�: "' o�v '•fences.,ari
all's'
Broken deteriorated; neg ecteil;,:alandoned ortsubstanhally defedistnictures; equipmen
"iiinery "ponds, pogls,` or eiicavations visually impAc75ng? lin the neigbbo;hood b
esentinses of
g a risk to public safety`of nuisance attractive to ch dren:,.For the purpo .
liapter, "nuisance attractive to cliililren" shall jmean :auy condition,: instrumentality:ori
"'e located:in a building or on Premises, which Be_unsafe:-or..dangerous.t
hildren.by reason sof their inability'to appreciate the peril therein;.and`which;may reasonabl
ex , to attract children to Fthe, remises and risk inti” .ti 1 `'-a wi ,•4 or on i
arleing;�osi ' "vewaysatlis or t�filieY pavedsurfaces ;excepl w en loeated
Jig rear or std
ac7.of a single- family clweliing ,which' contain,_substantial`«c`acics,_pathoies or otli
eficiencies posing a risk of harm to=the public.
Tres1;_wee s,_ or other .types of-vegetation that. are dead, •decayed; infested, dise
¢ergrow3i,or likely to harbor rats.or vermin and ane visible from a public light:of-wa : Fo
se of this ch ter "over'�"wn"is limi>-eii'to la `s or 4veeds over 12"in her- t
Buildings; structures; ox other surfaces upon which graffiti exists. Graffiti, as used in thi
apter;'�hall mean defacement,,damage; ar.destriiction by the gresence of ain ch
e=orothersirnilarsulistance•io'-'12.•caivin etchin - or=otlieren yin
q—yxolation. of the Pfovisions a`condihonaL use muC, plaiuied&e elopment rmi
'te$tural review r v w ce o'.other land 'en'dement or=land use rmi
Matnfenarice of Property in such condition as to.be detrimental to"f6e ptiM health, safety; o
IerA--*blfnre in such a manner-0-W constitute a VAN nuisance,as defined-b Civil Cod
ection 3480
17.17.080 Prohibited acts
A. Unlawful acts. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation that owns, occupies or
controls proFsrty in the City of San Luis Obispo to maintain or fail to maintain such property in
violation of ections 17 17 040 17.17.050 17.17.060, of 17:17.070 0_ this chapter for more than
72 hours.
B. Type of offense. Any person who violates If Nicti6ns`17-17.040, 17.17.050
7 1'1'7.060;or 17 17.070 olj this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. y person who violate
Sec lon 1"7.17 075 shall bettiltY A a•nusdem anor 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.
H
Legislative Draft- Neighb, ;ood Enhancement Ordinance II Attachment 1
Page 3 of 3
Garage Conversion Regulations
2.48.170 Jurisdiction. (Refers to jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission)
A. Approval by the commission shall be required for all structures and physical improvements
except individual built single-family dwellings. The exception for the individual single-family
dwellings shall not apply if(1) architectural review is required as a condition of a subdivision use
permit or other discretionary entitlement; (2) when a developer proposes to construct three or
more units; (3) when the director determines the site is sensitive as set forth in the procedures
document. "Sensitive sites" shall include, but not be limited to, open space zoning areas
designated by resolution of the planning commission, architectural review commission or
council; and (4) where the scale or character of the proposed dwelling contrasts significantly with
2`V w .e R'i..w..
adjacent or neighboring structures; d CS) f6e cdfil rV ion;of anwrreguiied ;:i
ove
Attachment 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS FOR PARKING AND DRIVEWAY
STANDARDS, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
PROHIBITED ACTS AND GARAGE CONVERSION REGULATIONS.
TA/ER 134-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 23, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application No. TA/ER
134-01, proposed text amendments to parking and driveway standards, property
development standards, prohibited acts, garage conversion regulations and the addition
of neighborhood preservation standards to chapter 17.17; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the policies and programs of the
General Plan and directly implement Program 2.10.2 of the Land Use Element, which
states, `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"
2. The Initial Study adequately evaluates all of the potential impacts of the project and
the Negative Declaration approved by the Community Development Department on
December 10, 2001, correctly determines that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment.
1-13
Attachment 1
Resolution No. [ ]
Page 2
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of environmental
impact (ER 134-01) and adopt the proposed text amendments, as submitted.
On motion by Commissioner [NAME], seconded by Commr [NAME], and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23`d day of January 2002.
Ronald Whisenand, Secretary
Planning Commission by:
Attachment 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2002
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Wednesday, January 23, 2002, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Jim
Aiken, Michael Boswell, and Stephen Peterson
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Planning
Technician Tyler Corey, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Neighborhood
Services Manager Rob Bryn, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The Minutes of September 26th and November 28th were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 39Q Foothill Boulevard. MOD 181-01; Modification to an approved Use it (U
204- allow a 4-foot high fence to be located on the prop me, and to
consider of hanges to the approved site plan; C-N-S Elyse Iverson,
applicant.
Planning Technician Tyler Corey p nted the st port, recommending denial of the
modification request based on findings i e outlined, and with direction to the
applicant to relocate and modify the fe Wi 0 days to comply with the approved
Use Permit to paint it a dark color wn or green), screen with landscaping, to the
satisfaction of the Community elopmentDirector.
Commr. Cooper as if they were going on the assumption that applicant would
recycle the exis ' fence.
Deputy Di ctor Whisenand replied that would be the Commission's decision.
Attachment 2
Planning Commission Minutes —
January 23, 2002
Page 5
2. Citywide. TA and ER 134-01; Amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations related
to property maintenance and development standards, and environmental review;
City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Neighborhood Services Manager Rob Bryn explained that the Neighborhood Services
Team is approximately one-year old and is comprised of members of City staff and
three representatives of the organization Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RON)..
He stated that RON is an umbrella organization of various neighborhood groups
throughout the community that provides input to staff and various commissions and the
City Council. He noted that a package of various proposals was submitted that can be
acted on as a Planning Commission function, which are text amendments to the Zoning
Regulations.
Planning Technician Tyler Corey presented staff report, recommending the City Council
approve the Negative Declaration of environmental impact (ER 134-01) and adopt the
proposed text amendments, as submitted.
Commr. Cooper explained they understood that there is no clear definition of
"abandonment" and suggested putting in a noticing requirement so there would be a
formal initiation period for abandonment of buildings.
Mr. Bryn explained what was occurring in single-family residential applications is a
remodel would begin and then stop, and when the building permit was about to expire
they would do something to require an inspection and then get approval for work for
another year. He explained the way the Uniform Housing Code is written is very similar
to the language of the Housing Code, which is adopted by jurisdictions throughout
California and the United States.
Commr. Cooper expressed a concern on the issue of overgrown lawns and felt the
language is very antiquated.
Mr. Bryn explained that the language was simplified by saying "wet, dry, and the lawn or
weeds are over 12-inches in height it is a public nuisance. "
Attorney Trujillo explained condition 5 is the highbred between what the Uniform Codes
provide for public safety and try to work it into an aesthetics point of view.
Commr. Boswell asked, regarding Section 17.17.050, Front yard paving, for a
confirmation that they were making this process more formal.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained that it raises the level of review.
Commr. Boswell asked if item one in the neighborhood preservation section was tied to
some other timing or was it deemed to be two-years.
Attorney Trujillo explained it was the consensus of staff and their experience in the field.
Attachment 2
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2002
Page 6
Commr. Boswell expressed a problem with the language in section four, which
references substantial cracks, potholes or other deficiencies and felt it is subjective to a
degree.
Attorney Trujillo explained that if it was posing a risk of harm to the public, then it was
reasonable to enforce.
Commr. Boswell asked what is the punishment for a misdemeanor for violations of
Section 17.70.075.
Attorney Trujillo explained that misdemeanors are punishable by a fine of up to
$1000.00 and up to six months in jail, and infractions are punishable by a fine of up to
$100.00.
Commr. Osborne felt that people should not be subjected to such extreme penalties for
these things.
Attorney Trujillo explained they don't feel they should be subjected to these extreme
penalties and the whole ordinance needs to be looked at. He explained that any
violation of the Municipal Code is deemed a misdemeanor, unless made an infraction.
Vice-Chair Loh commented about the issue of the cracks on the driveways and
questioned the cracks on the public streets.
Attorney Trujillo stated the City has a sidewalk inspection program.
Chairperson Peterson asked who is responsible, the landlord or the tenant, under
Section 17.17.075.
Mr. Bryn replied the focus has always been on the landlord.
Chairperson Peterson asked if there would still be flexibility with the tandem parking
space in the front yard setback once the change is made.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied that tandem parking could be approved, but not in
the front yard setback. He suggested clarifying the language to establish an exemption
process.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Brett Cross, RON Board Member, commented on garage conversions and presented
some photographs of some conversions within the city. He suggested they begin going
to the ARC for compatibility issues.
Vice-Chair Loh asked if there are any other alternatives?
Mr. Bryn explained that the carport detail that is being reviewed is advisory.
�—�J7
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 2
January 23, 2002
Page 7
Deputy Director Whisenand explained if they are complying with Zoning Regulations as
they are currently written, they could not be turned down.
Cydnee Holcolmb, Chairperson of RQN, stated that the Property Maintenance
Standards and the Garage Conversion Regulations are very important to the
preservation of many of the older neighborhoods. She strongly supports the ordinance
package.
Joan Lynch, President of the Neighborhoods of Foothill Boulevard, expressed her
concern about the deterioration of properties, which is happening due to the landlord's
neglect of the properties.
Tom Wilabur, SLO, stated because of the cost of property, the only way people could
afford to live here is to have a higher density.
The public session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Osborne made a motion to recommend the City Council.approve the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the proposed text amendments with the
following changes: Eliminate the first section of 12.38.050 C and 17.16.020.D.7
regarding the elimination of tandem_ parking and regarding 17 17.075 to change this to
an infraction from a misdemeanor. Seconded by Commr. Cooper.
Commr. Cooper made an amendment that 17.17.075 -#1 read as follows: Buildings
which are left in an unreasonable state of abandonment and noticed, partial destruction
or partial construction An unreasonable state is defined as any building or structure
that has been formally noticed in this condition for one year or more and substantially
detracts from the appearance of the immediate neighborhood.
Commr. Osborne as the motion maker agreed to the amendment.
Commr. Cooper made an amendment to number 5 which would .leave,out the words
"likely to" in reference to harboring rats or vermin.
Commr. Osborne as the motion maker agreed to the amendment.
Vice-Chair Loh asked Chairman Peterson what his concern is on Section 12.038.050 C
was.
Chairperson Peterson explained he would like to maintain the flexibility of the tandem
parking space in the front yard setback.
Vice-Chair Loh commented that it could be directly related with Chapter 17.16.020 7.
Deputy Director Whisenand noted that for internal consistency, both Sections would
need to be changed.
1 -fig
Attachment 2
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2002
Page 8
Commr. Boswell noted the recommended change to one year on 17.17.075 (1) seems
like it could be short for certain construction projects that may take over a year.
Don Wright, Code Enforcement Coordinator, explained that the building permit would
automatically expire after one year if work has not begun, or if the project is abandoned
for a period of six months.
Rob Bryn explained it is difficult to condemn after a frame is built under the Uniform
Housing Code.
AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Loh, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson
NOES: Commr. Caruso
ABSENT: None
The motion carried 6-1.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
A. genda Forecast:
February 13, 2: Annual review of the Laverne Universi ampus at the Crossroads
Center; Sierra Vis ospital's proposal of a modification their campus; A general pan
Annual Report for the ring Commission to review
February 27, 2002: Review o nges to the C eland's Project.
4. Commission
There was no discussion.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business b ore the Commission, the meeting add ned at 9:30 p.m. to
the next regular meetin cheduled for February 13, 2002, at 7:00 p. in Council
Chamber.
Respectfully s itted by
Irene E. Pie
Recordin ecretary
x--19
Attachment 3
SECTION 1. SECTIONS AMENDED. Section 2.48.170, 10.36.170, 10.36.180, 10.36.232
17.17.050 and 17.17.080A&B are hereby amended to read as follows:
2.48.170 Jurisdiction.
A. Approval by the commission shall be required for all structures and physical improvements
except individual built single-family dwellings. The exception for the individual single-family
dwellings shall not apply if(1) architectural review is required as a condition of a subdivision use
permit or other discretionary entitlement; (2) when a developer proposes to construct three or
more units; (3) when the director determines the site is sensitive as set forth in the procedures
document. "Sensitive sites" shall include, but not be limited to, open space zoning areas
designated by resolution of the planning commission, architectural review commission or
council; aed (4) where the scale or character of the proposed dwelling contrasts significantly with
adjacent or neighboring structures; d; 5 'the conversion,of-an '`aired"arkiri" -s ace that`i
covered
10.36.170 Designation of residential parking permit areas - Adoption of resolution.
A. The Council may hotil" , by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential parking
permit area if the Council finds that 1) the area is predominantly residential, 2) the streets in the
area are congested with vehicles arked by persons not residing in the area 'd the designatton Ys
u-" rted 6 a 67%1 majontya-of the'alected-residents;^.o 3) limiting the parking of vehicles
along the streets in the area to vehicles registered or controlled and exclusively used by persons
residing in the area is necessary in order to preserve the quality of life defined in.residence
titioaand approved by"a 67%) maioriry of persons residing in the area.
10.36.180 Designation of residential parking permit areas - Content of resolution.
The resolution designating an area of the city as a residential permit parking area shall describe
the designated area in which parking will be limited to vehicles displaying a parking permit .
issued by the Public Works De artrnent for that purpose and shall set forth the hours and days, Ej
i&d b ,a 67%'ma'orit :;of ahe cesidents`fesidin 'in he'distric when parking will be limited
to those vehicles. (Ord. 1264 § 2, 1994: Prior code § 3209.18)
10.36.232 Enforcement.
Enforcement of the residential :)arkingep rmit district may EhAll be on a eamplaint ce az and
routi- basis, d maw tie'bn_,a com�plain�t'bassii by residents within the district boundaries.
Enforcement personnel shall be dispatched on an as-available basis as determined by the city
parking manager/police department. All parking citations issued for noncompliance with the
parking permit requirement shall be governed by the civil proceedings set forth in the California
Vehicle Code. (Ord. 1264 § 7, 1994)
Legislative Draft- Neighbor.....od Enhancement Ordinance II Attachment 3
Page 2 of 2
17.17.50 Front yard paving.
No more than fifty percent of any residential front yard (see definition of "front yard"), not to
exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width, may be covered by concrete or other impervious material,
including driveways, patio areas, walkways, and other landscape features.
xce tions to this
tandard can be.,ranted through the Administrative Use Permit process shout the proposed
paving will be compatible with the neighborhood.
17.17.80 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 ections 17.17.040, 17.17.050 17.17.060 or 17.17.070 o this chapter for more than
72 hours.
B. Type of offense. Anyerson who violates axy-preiex-e€ ections 17.17.040 17.17.050
;17.17.060, 17.17.070, or 17.17.075 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.
SECTION 2. SECTIONS ADDED.
Add Section 308.4 to the Uniform Administrative Code (Section 15.04.010) to read as follows:
0088.4 Storage of Solid Waste Containers. All new Group R, Division 3 occupancies for which
4 building permit application is submitted after the effective date of this ordinance shall provide a
pace adequate in size to store and screen all solid waste containers when viewed from the publi
ght-of-way. The storage area shall have minimum dimensions of 3-feet by 8-feet or 6.feet by 6�
eet and shall not conflict with required parking spaces. If the storage area is located in the fronti
and setback established by other ordinances, the storage area shall be screened by a fence,
artition or other enclosure in compliance with maximum height limitations. In no case shall a
artition or enclosure required by_this section be less than 48-inches in height;
Add Section 17.17.075 to read as follows:
17.17.75 Noghborhood.PreservatioiL
t shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person, firm or corporation, owning, leasing
copying, or having possession of any private property in the City to maintain such proper. i
Puch a manner that any of the following conditions are found to exist thereon:i
1. Buildings, which are left in an unreasonable state of abandonment and noticed, parti
egnr ction, or martial construction. An unreasonable state is defined as an buildin o
Legislative Draft - Neighb,-- ood Enhancement Ordinance II �i Attachment 3
Page 3 of 3
�tructure that has been formally noticed in this condition for one ear or more an
ubstantiallv detracts from the appearance of the immediate neighborho
2 Paint or finish material on the exterior surface of a building or other structure that has
ome so deteriorated, damaged, or unsightly as to substantially detract from the appearance
f the immediate neighborhood. For the purposes of this Chapter, "substantially' shall b
efined as the absence or deterioration of a required protective covering exceeding 25% o
he exterior surface area, including,but not limited to, chipping,curling,damaged or missing
paint. Exterior surfaces shall include gutters, downspouts trim doors window, fences an
alis.
3. Broken, deteriorated, neglected, abandoned, or substantially defaced structures, equipment
machinery, ponds, pools, or excavations visually impacting on the neighborhood o
presenting a risk to public safety or nuisance attractive to children. For the purposes of thiss
lC'hapter, "nuisance attractive to children" shall mean any condition, instrumentality o
machine located in a building or on premises, which is or may be unsafe or dangerous t
phildren by reason of their inability to appreciate the peril therein, and which may reasonabl
be expected to attract children to the premises and risk injury by playingwith in or on it
Parking lots, driveways, paths or other paved surfaces, except when located in a rear or sid
yard of a single family dwelling, which contain substantial cracks, potholes or othe
deficiencies posing a risk of harm to the public.
Trees, weeds, or other types of vegetation that are dead, decayed, infested, diseas
overgrown, or harbor rats or vermin and are visible from a public right-of-way. For th
purpose of this chapter, "overgrown" is limited to lawns or weeds over 12" in height��
Buildings, structures, or other surfaces upon which graffiti exists. Graffiti, as used in th'
ter, shall mean defacement, damage, or destruction by'the presenceofv ' chalkJ
dye or other similar substance; or by carving,etching, or other engravings
"Any violation of the provisions of a conditional use permit; planned development Dermit
architectural review approval variance or other land use entitlement or land use permitT
S. Maintenance of property in such condition as to be detrimental to the public health, safety, o
general welfare in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance as defined by Civil Cod
�ection 3480.
Attachment 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5330-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS FOR PARKING AND DRIVEWAY
STANDARDS, PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
PROHIBITED ACTS AND GARAGE CONVERSION REGULATIONS.
TA/ER 134-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 23, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application No. TA/ER
134-01, proposed text amendments to parking and driveway standards, property
development standards, prohibited acts, garage conversion regulations and the addition
of neighborhood preservation standards to chapter 17.17; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public, hearing were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the policies and programs of the
General Plan and directly implement Program 2.10.2 of the Land Use Element, which
states, "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.'
2. The Initial Study adequately evaluates all of the potential impacts of the project and
the Negative Declaration approved by the Community Development Department on
December 10, 2001, correctly determines that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of environmental
impact (ER 134-01) and adopt the proposed text amendments as modified.
On motion by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commr Cooper, and on the
following roll call vote:
/-a3
; Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5330-02
Page 2
AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Boswell, Loh, Peterson
NOES: Commr. Caruso
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23`d day of January 2002.
Ronald Whisenand, Secretary
Planning Commission
- . Attachment 5
A11VIII I .1of sAn Wis O
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 134-01
1. Project Title: Zoning Regulation Amendments
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Tyler Corey, Planning Technician (805) 781-7169
4. Project Location: Citywide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Rob Bryn as representative for the City
6. General Plan Designation: Citywide
7. Zoning: Citywide
8. Description of the Project:
Text amendments to various sections of the City of San Luis Obispo's Zoning Regulations dated
February 18, 2000. A copy of the recommended text amendments are included as attachment 1.
The project involves minor modifications to parking and driveway standards, property
development standards, prohibited acts, garage conversion regulations and the addition of
neighborhood preservation standards to chapter 17.17.
The intent of these text amendments is to clarify tandem parking within street yards, require an
administrative use permit for exceptions to front yard paving requirements, provide
neighborhood preservation standards, expand the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review
Commission to include review of single-family dwellings for the conversion of required covered
parking and clarify legal action for violations to property maintenance standard sections
17.17.040, 17.17.050, 17.17.060, 17.17.070 and 17.17.075.
The City of San LuisObispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
�-a s
Attachment 5
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Citywide
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Zoning text amendment
Environmental review
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1 a6
Attachment 5
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing 't
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
The project requires review by one or more State agencies such as Cal Trans or the California Department
of Fish and Game and is to be sent to the State Clearinghouse for routing.
�r CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECWST 2001
/-a7
Attachment 5
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
December 10,2001
gnature Date
Ron Whisenand,Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director
Printed Name for
�i CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
—42e—
Attachment 5
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' inappropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INMAL STUDY Ew tONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2001
i-aq
• •��MV111111 4 A I./
Issues, Discussion and Supporl nformation Sources Sources Po' y Potentially less Than No
Si am Significant Significant Impact
ER # 134-01 Neighborhood Preservation Issues Unless Impact
g Mitigation
Zoning Regulation Amendments Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings X
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area?
No impacts to aesthetics would occur with the implementation of the zoning text amendments. The amendments may in fact
protect and improve the visual character of residential neighborhoods by establishing stricter maintenance and development
standards.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps X
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, X
to non-agricultural use?
No impacts to agricultural resources would occur with the implementation of the zoning text amendments.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
The project will not impact air quality as it does not involve any amendments to City policy on air pollution, nor will it
generate additional sources of air pollution.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a X
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
/-3D
Issues, Discussion and Suppor nformation Sources Sources Pr y Potentially Less Than No
St .ant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 134-01 Neighborhood Preservation Mitigation
Zoning Regulation Amendments Incorporated
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
No biological impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 3 X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human retrains,including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
No cultural impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Confect with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner'
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
The project will not conflict with City energy conservation plans.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
U. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
CtrY oP SAN Luis Oeispo 7 INrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEOKusT 2001
l -3l
HnacnmenT 5
Issues, Discussion and Suppor nformation Sources Sources P, y Potentially Less Than No
S. .ant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 134-01 Neighborhood Preservation Issues Unless Impact
g Mitigation
Zoning Regulation Amendments Incorporated
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
The project will not expose people to geologic hazards because it will not modify the City policy on development in areas
with high geologic sensitivity.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1 X
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
659625 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
No hazardous impacts would occur as no specific site is under consideration.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO B INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1-3a
r�uutrl u t tGt fl J
Issues, Discussion and Suppor nformation Sources Sources Pr y Potentially Lxss Than No
St ant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 134-01 Neighborhood Preservation issues unless Impact
g Mitigation
Zoning Regulation Amendments Incorporated
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
fl Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
No impacts to water resources will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City's policies on water and
drainage.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1,2 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
The text amendments will ensure that the City's Zoning Regulations are consistent with the General Plan.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Implementation of the text amendments will not conflict with the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the pro'ect:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
CITY OF SAN Luis 06iSPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
�-33
_ Hnacnmeni o
Issues, Discussion and Suppol information Sources Sources P y Potentially Less Than No
S, cant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 134-01 Neighborhood Preservation Issues Unless Impact
g Mitigation
Zoning Regulation Amendments Incorporated
elsewhere?
No impacts to population and housing will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City's policies on
residential densities.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
Other public facilities? X
The project will not impact public services as no specific site is under consideration.
14. RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
No impacts to recreational facilities and programs will occur with implementation of the zoning text amendments.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the I X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
C) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? . X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite?
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
This project is a text amendment,and therefore will not in itself create any effects on transportation or circulation.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
��� Ctry OF SAN Luis Oeispo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
r�uaw n t tat R J
Issues, Discussion and Suppor, nformation Sources Sources P, y Potentially less Than No
S. ,ant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 134-01 Neighborhood Preservation Ia`toet tt Impact
g Mitigation
Zoning Regulation Amendments Incorporated
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
The project will not impact utility systems as no specific site is under consideration.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Implementation of the zoning text amendments will not degrade the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
No cumulative impacts are expected to occur from implementation of the zoning text amendments.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
See discussion above.
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLisT 2001
/-3,5-
Attachment 5
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.Not Applicable
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identi the followin items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis was used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation treasures based on the earlier analysis.
No earlier analysis was used.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
No earlier anal sis was used.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. I City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
2. Cit of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance,February 18,2000
3. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,October 1995
Attachment:
Proposed zoning text amendments
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1-3L
Attachment 5
Chapter 12.38 — Parking and Driveway Standards
12.38.050 Geometrics and design standards.
C. Tandem Parking. Residential uses may have required spaces arranged in tandem subject to the
approval of the community development director. Single dweiilings here tandem parkin" is
b" r------a iappFeved may -have ene unenelesed parking spaee within the street yar-d
s
to Section
17.16.020 of this code).
Chapter 17.16—Property Development Standards
17.16.020 Yards.
D. What May Occupy Yards.
6. Unenclosed Parking Spaces in Other Yards. Unenclosed parking spaces and parking aisles may
be located within other yards.
a
8.2! Enclosed Parking Spaces in Street Yard Prohibited. In no case may an enclosed parking
space from which vehicles exit directly onto the street be located less than twenty feet from the
street right-of-way or setback line. In a flag lot subdivision, this setback requirement shall apply
to the access roadway.
Chapter 17.17 —Property Maintenance Standards
17.17.050 Front yard paving.
No more than fifty percent of any residential front yard (see definition of "front yard"), not to
exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width, may be covered by concrete or other impervious material,
including driveways, patio areas, walkways, and other landscape features. i�gea-vvittea-Fe est
xe tion
an to u e ye rotes o`l the proposed
paving will be compatible with the neighborhood.
a. . u Man rs arm r o 0 on wnan easing
,�y1ri or avang pos sign nyat ro rt=y ' _ to aiaitain such r a"
ue erAthat<an ofntlie fo owin .eonuido oun exist a n:.
�°B'uil "s whc�hare a ando edx. arttali destro, ed, I ian u ' onabltat o anti
chon �nianreaso a tate s e e as.an fmaSla r ualdin ortureas
PWI
� =the eoutsexof°constnxc'on o m e c ndi'on aid
tiuilor structure o c " atio of struetion 'is• s bs a11, < etrac omMthe
ee of=th a or, ooh
P f o material on a ex erio" ace o utl ing or c h
a s
32
Legislative Draft - Neigh; .00d Enhancement Ordinance II Attachment 5
Page 2 of 2
WIN er ratio
oA.
111iffi5
in u o In ar 'n o sin
to c 0 tt u :oo HRAs and
,alts.
Qt Token detenoratWNfte .ec anii ed r `l start y e trt�ctures egtu meat,
•xa
erw on -, , exca a'o trail on nei �brkoPo of
r en
in ns�to L e "ancei tixctiv t chtl ren F e p f tht
Chanuisancr. 1 _tte�o1 t ha[1- e - ndron; trumentahty o
litnlo' atez`i -r R r abe nsaf ar long out`s
ons o
inric a: eonalil`;
x ora c c en ere es an s in u , b, a n n r on' '
o erav F�P-310c"
s7 `
m e amtl n on a s ttMao oftie
e a'envie in arts aunt "li
' " egefairo eca dtsease `
9 "tttC�1' ha" '•
e o lileelo' ,a o ; e ro ti righfi=�f
'` Si'a1` t'o gs,hs�trumctures, of""xo . n fe br= s tton,b, �fh raffiFus
am _presence
arnf ink Aha
A er�stmilai• iib c • o sarvin tc 'n ,orxothe�en abut .
�_- anon o ` t ns condifion anisea eel"DEEM= ruii
v e. rb al ce.or<• er m an e 'runt
i ce' r c Won i ci n tcime o th : u?c heal Rs o
e elfane n uch anise to tate lie
'San efin b "Cih';C e
17.17.080 Prohibited acts
A. Unlawful acts. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation that owns, occupies or
controlsproperty in the City of San Luis Obis o to maintain or fail to maintain such property in
violation of ecti00ns`.17:17� ,Q-,�f4jiffl this chapter for more than
72 hours.
B Type of offense. An person who violates ecfion 7 040 171T0'SU
Z`17060 r. Yaft 7r07U "� this cha ter shall be uilty of an infraction. iso wh viZates
exon 07• 7 a mis Ain or 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.
/_3g,
Legislative Draft- Neigh :ood Enhancement Ordinance 11 Attachment 5
Page 3 of 3
Garage Conversion Regulations
2.48.170 Jurisdiction. (Refers to jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission)
A. Approval by the commission shall be required for all structures and physical improvements
except individual built single-family dwellings. The exception for the individual single-family
dwellings shall not apply if(1) architectural review is required as a condition of a subdivision use
permit or other discretionary entitlement; (2) when a developer proposes to construct three or
more units; (3) when the director determines the site is sensitive as set forth in the procedures
document. "Sensitive sites" shall include, but not be limited to, open space zoning areas
designated by resolution of the planning commission, architectural review commission or
council; and (4) where the scale or character of the proposed dwelling contrasts significantly with
adjacent or neighboring structures; d 5!�tbe 5conversxo W of:an"i<re uued ' arkuis ace'that
1-39
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PARKING CITATION FEES, PENALTIES,
SURCHARGES, AND PROCESSING; AND ESTABLISHING PARKING FEES AND
HOURS FOR USERS OF THE CITY'S PARKING STRUCTURES; AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO..9180 (200 1)
WHEREAS, State law provides, in Vehicle Code Section 40203.5, that cities establish the
amount of parking penalties, fees, and surcharges; and
WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City to recover administrative fees, parking penalties,
fees and collection costs related to civil debt collection, late payment penalties, and other related
charges; and
WHEREAS, State law and the issuing agencies authorize the adoption of uniform fees,
penalties, collection, adjudication process, authority to issue parking citations for California Vehicle
Code and local regulations, and to establish a compliance program for parking citation processing; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide secure and user friendly parking for all users of the
parking structures; and
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments; and
WHEREAS, the City has the support of the Downtown Association to implement changes in
the parking fines, parking garage rates and hours; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the staff report and held a public meeting on the
proposed changes to the parking fines, parking garage rates and hours.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Resolution 9180 is hereby rescinded.
SECTION 2. The City has implemented the required provisions for processing parking citations and
hereby establishes the penalties for parking violations, late payment penalties, administrative fees, and
other related fees for all parking violation codes as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
SECTION 3. The parking rate and hours for charging fees in the city's parking structures shall be the
first 60 minutes free and 50 cents per hour with a daily maximum of$5.00 per visit from 8 a.m. until
7:00 p.m. each Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
SECTION 4. The parking rate and hours for charging fees in the city's parking structures shall be the
first 60 minutes free and 50 cents per hour with a daily maximum of$5.00 per visit from 8:00 a.m.
until 11:00 p.m. each Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Sundays will be exempt from any parking garage
fees.
Attachment 6
SECTION 5. The monthly fee for proximity cards (Proxcards) for the Marsh Street Parking Structure
shall be $50.00 per month. The monthly fee for proximity cards (Proxcards) for the Palm Street
Parking Structure shall be $40.00 per month. An increase of$5.00 per month will be implemented at
the Marsh and Palm Parking Structures, effective two (2) years from the date of this Resolution.
SECTION 6. Program 6.1 of the Parking Management Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:
Parking fund revenues will be used to: a) maintain and expand parking operations and supply and b)
repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures. Pilot or "test case" parking
demand reduction activities may also be funded, provided that they are also monitored, within a
defined period of time, and success is measured. Those activities deemed successful shall continue to
receive funding, support and monitoring.
Upon motion of seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST
City Clerk
APPROVED
fir
r senXityAttomey
R Page 2 of 2
Attachment 6
Date 02/06/02 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PENALTY SCHEDULE
CODE&SECTION DESCRIPTION PENALTY
SLMC 10.12.030 REQUIRED OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS 45
SLMC 10.12.040 BICYCLE ON HIGHWAY- REGULATIONS 20
SLMC 10.12.050 INTERFERENCE WITH POLICEIAUTHORIZED OFFICER 80
SLMC 10.12.080 REPORT OF DAMAGE TO CERTAIN PROPERTY 75
SLMC 10.14.030 OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 45
SLMC 10.14.090 UNAUTHORIZED PAINTING ON CURBS 45
SLMC 10.16.010 OBEDIENCE TO TURNING MARKERS 75
SLMC 10.16.030 OBEDIENCE TO NO-TURN SIGNS 45
SLMC 10.16.040 SIGNAL CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS -RIGHT TURNS 45
SLMC 10.24.010 STOP SIGNS 20
SLMC 10.24.020 EMERGING FROM ALLEY,DRIVEWAY OR BUILDING 45
SLMC 10.28.010 DRIVING THROUGH FUNERAL PROCESSION 45
SLMC 10.28.020 COMMERCIAL VEHICLES USING PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS 45
SLMC 10.28.030 RIDING OR DRIVING ON SIDEWALK 45
SLMC 10.28.040 NEW PAVEMENT AND MARKINGS 20
SLMC 10.28.050 LIMITED ACCESS 20
SLMC 10.28.060 OBEDIENCE TO BARRIERS AND SIGNS 75
SLMC 10.28.070 ENTRANCE INTO INTERSECTION-OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC 20
SLMC 10.32.020 PED CROSSING IN BUSINESS DISTRICT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK 20
SLMC 10.36.020 STOPPING OR STANDING IN PARKWAYS PROHIBITED 20
SLMC 10:36.030 STOP/STAND/PARK IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 20
SLMC 10.36.040 NO PARKING ZONE-PROHIBITED PARKING 35
SLMC 10.36.050 USE OF STREETS FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES PROHIBITED 10
SLMC 10.36.060 PARKING DEMONSTRATION 10
SLMC 10.36.070 REPAIRING OR GREASING VEHICLE ON PUBLIC STREET 10
SLMC 10.36.080 WASHING OR POLISHING VEHICLES 10
SLMC 10.36.090 PARKING ADJACENT TO SCHOOLS 10
SLMC 10.36.100 PARKING PROHIBITED ON NARROW STREETS 10
SLMC 10.36.110 PARKING ON GRADES 10
SLMC 10.36.120 UNLAWFUL PARKING-PEDDLERS,VENDORS 10
SLMC 10.36.130 EMERGENCY PARKINGSIGNS 10
SLMC 10.36.140 LARGE/COMMERCIAL.VEHICLE PARKING NEAR INTERSECTION 10
SLMC 10.36.150 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF LARGE VEHICLES 10
SLMC 10.36.160 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF VEH W/OPERATING AIR/REFRIGERATION 10
SLMC 10.36.200 PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA 20
SLMC 10.36.230 PERMITS -DISPLAY OF PERMITS 10
SLMC 10.36.233. PARKING IN YARD 35
SLMC 10.36.235 NO PERMIT LOT 15
SLMC 10.40.010 TIMED PARKING 10 MINUTES TO 10 HOURS 17
SLMC 10.40.020 BACKING INTO PARKING SPACE PROHIBITED 15
SLMC 10.40.040 PARKING PARALLEL ON ONE-WAY STREETS 8
SLMC 10.40.050 DIAGONAL PARKING 8
SLMC 10.40.060 PARKING SPACE MARKINGS 20
SLMC 10.40.070 NO STOPPING ZONE 8
SLMC 10.40.080 ALL NIGHT PARKING PROHIBITED(3-5am) 20
SLMC 10.44.020 CURB MARKING TO INDICATE NO STOPPING/PARKING REGS. 10
SLMC 10.44.030 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN YELLOW ZONE 35
Exhibit A-Penalty Schedule 2002
Page 1
Attachment 6
Date 02/06/02 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PENALTY SCHEDULE
CODE&SECTION DESCRIPTION PENALTY
SLMC 10.44.040 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN WHITE ZONE 20
SLMC 10.44.050 STANDING IN ANY ALLEY 20
SLMC 10.44.070 HANDICAPPED PARKING 275
SLMC 10.48.010 CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED IN CENTRAL DISTRICT 45
SLMC 10.48.020 ADVERTISING VEHICLES 20
SLMC 10.48.030 ANIMAL DRAWN VEHICLES 20
SLMC 10.48.040 TRUCK ROUTES 75
SLMC 10.48.050 COMM.VEHICLES PROHIBITED FROM USING CERTAIN STREETS 75
SLMC 10.48.060 MAX. GROSS WT.LIMITS OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN STREETS 75
SLMC 10.52.040 PARKING METERS-OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 10
SLMC 10.52.050 UNLAWFUL TO PARK AFTER METER TIME HAS EXPIRED 12
SLMC 10.52.060 UNLAWFUL TO EXTEND TIME BEYOND LIMIT 2
SLMC 10.52.070 IMPROPER USE OF METER 2
SLMC 10.52.080 PARKING METERS/STANDARDS-PROPER USE 2
SLMC 10.52.110 MOTORCYCLE SPACES 2
CVC 5204(A) CURRENT TAB IMPROPERLY ATTACHED 76
CVC 21106(B) CROSSWALK-USE WHERE PROHIBITED 54
CVC 21113(A) VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-MOVING 103
CVC 21113(B) VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-PARKING 20
CVC 21113(C) DRIVEWAYS,PATHS,PARKING FACILITIES ON GROUNDS 20
CVC 21113(F) MOTORIZED BICYCLES,SKATEBOARDS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY 103
CVC 22500.1 STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: FIRE LANE 75
CVC 22500(A) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: WITHIN INTERSECTION 20
CVC 22500(B) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING`. ON A CROSSWALK 20
CVC 22500(C) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING`. BETWEEN SAFETY ZONE 20
CVC 22500(D) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: WAN 15' FIREHOUSE ENTRANCE 20
CVC 22500(E) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKIN& PUBLIC/PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 20
CVC 22500(F) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON SIDEWALK 20
CVC 22500(G) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ALONG/OPPOSITE OBSTRUCT 20
CVC 22500(H) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON ROADWAY SIDE OF VEHICLE 20
CVC 22500(I) IMPROPER PARKING IN BUS ZONE 250
CVC 22500(J) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: IN TUBE OR TUNNEL 20
CVC 22500(K) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: UPON BRIDGE EXCEPT AUTH 20
CVC 22500(L) IMPROPER PARKING IN WHEELCHAIR.ACCESS 250
CVC 22502(A) CURB PARKING 20
CVC 22502(B) PARKING OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC 20
CVC 22502(C) CURB PARKING-WHEELS MORE THAN 18 INCHES FROM CURB 20
CVC 22504(A) UNINCORPORATED AREA PARKING 20
CVC 22505(A) PARKING ON STATE HIGHWAY WHERE SIGN POSTED 20
CVC 22505(B) POSTED NO PARKING-STATE HIGHWAY 20
CVC 22507 UNLAWFUL PARKING 20
CVC 22507.8(A) PARKING IN SPACE FOR HANDICAPPED 275
CVC 22507.8 (B) PARKING IN SPACE FOR HANDICAPPED-OBSTRUCT/BLOCK 275
CVC 22507.8(C)(1) PARKING IN SPACE FOR HANDICAPPED-ON LINES MARKED 275
CVC 22507.8(C)(2) PARKING IN SPACE FOR HANDICAPPED-PARKING LOT 275
CVC 22510 PARKING IN SNOW REMOVAL AREAS 20
CVC 22511.7 HANDICAP ZONE 275
Exhibit A-Penalty Schedule 2002
Page 2
,/)3
Attachment 6
Date 02/06/02 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PENALTY SCHEDULE
CODE&SECTION DESCRIPTION PENALTY
CVC 22512 VEHICLE UNATTENDED 103
CVC 22513 TOW CARS-PARKING ON FREEWAY 20
CVC 22514 FIRE HYDRANTS 20
CVC:22515(A) UNATTENDED VEHICLES-SET BRAKES/STOP MOTOR 20
CVC 22515(B) UNATTENDED VEHICLES -SET BRAKES/WHEELS/PREVENT MOVE 20
CVC 22516 LOCKED VEHICLE 103
CVC 22517 OPENING AND CLOSING DOORS 103
CVC 22520 STOPPING ON FREEWAY 20
CVC 22520.5 VENDING ON FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 103
CVC 22520.5(A) VENDING ON FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 103
CVC 22521 ILLEGAL TO PARK ON RAILROAD TRACKS 20
CVC 22522 PARKING NEAR SIDEWALK ACCESS RAMPS 275
CVC 22523(A) VEHICLE ABANDONMENT 270
CVC 22523(B) VEHICLE ABANDONMENT 270
CVC 22526(A) BLOCKING INTERSECTION PROHIBITED-ANTI-GRIDLOCK 50
CVC 22526(B) BLOCKING INTERSECTION 50
CVC 22650 UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF UNATTENDED VEHICLE 103
CVC 22651(B) VEHICLE PARKED/LEFT STANDING TO OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC 103
CVC 226585 TOW COMPANY-REPORT DAMAGE 103
CVC 22658(L) TOW COMPANY-ILLEGALLY REMOVING VEHICLE 103
CVC 22951 PARKING LOT-STREET AND ALLEY PARKING 20
CVC 22952(A) PARKING LOT-TOWING OR REMOVAL 103
CVC 22952(B) PARKING LOT-TOWING OR REMOVAL 103
FIRST LATE PAYMENT PENALTY 10
SECOND LATE PAYMENT PENALTY 10
Exhibit A-Penalty Schedule 2002
Page 3
l-#4
� 7
Attachment 7
ORDINANCE NO. (2002 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
REGULATIONS
(TA/ER 134-01)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 23, 2002
and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 2, 2002 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments are consistent
with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City
ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
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 adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code, and reflects the independent
judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Sections Amended: Section 2.48.170, 10.36.170, 10.36.180, 10.36.232
17.17.050 and 17.17.080A&B of the Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
2.48.170 Jurisdiction.
A. Approval by the commission shall be required for all structures and physical improvements
except individual built single-family dwellings. The exception for the individual single-family
dwellings shall not apply if (1) architectural review is required as a condition of a subdivision
use permit or other discretionary entitlement; (2) when a developer proposes to construct three or
more units; (3) when the director determines the site is sensitive as set forth in the procedures
document. "Sensitive sites" shall include, but not be limited to, open space zoning areas
designated by resolution of the planning commission, architectural review commission or
council; a d (4) where the scale or character of the proposed dwelling contrasts significantly
with adjacent or neighboring structures; d: 5 the conversion of an r gnire�Q, s
att i is covered
1036.170 Designation of residential parking permit areas -Adoption of resolution.
A. The Council mayhould, by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential parking
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) Affachment 7
Page-2
permit area if the Council finds that 1) the area is predominantly residential, 2) the streets in the
area are congested with vehicles-parked by persons not residing in the area anjthe desi ation�i
uppgrted by'a (67%) majority of.the affect residents' 0 3) limiting the parking of vehicles
along the streets in the area to vehicles registered or controlled and exclusively used by persons
residing in the area is necessaryin order to preserve the quality of life Vis;defined_in resider
pe6tion'and apqj.maj6dity of persons residing in the area.
10.36.180 Designation of residential parking permit areas - Content of resolution.
The resolution designating an area of the city as a residential permit parking area shall describe
the designated area in which parking will be limited to vehicles displaying a parking permit
issued by the Public Works Department for that purpose and shall set forth the hours and days,9
specified.hy a 67% majority of the residents PesidihgjgLthedistnAC when parking will be limited
to those vehicles. (Ord. 1264 § 2, 1994: Prior code § 3209.18)
1036.232 Enforcement.
Enforcement of the residential parking permit district moray hall be on a egular an�
utin basis, _ d may be on a complaint basig by residents within the district boundaries.
Enforcement personnel shall be dispatched on an as-available basis as determined by the city
parking manager/police department. All parking citations issued for noncompliance with the
parking permit requirement shall be governed by the civil proceedings set forth in the California
Vehicle Code. (Ord. 1264 § 7, 1994)
17.17.050 Front yard paving.
No more than fifty percent of any residential front yard (see definition of "front yard"), not to
exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width, may be covered by concrete or other impervious material,
including driveways, patio areas, walkways, and other landscape features. ""1
est
_ I
Exceptionsr4ads that to thi�
tand'ard can be granted throwthe. Administrative.Use Permit rocess should the proposed
paving+mill be compatible with the neighborhood.
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 Sections 17.17:040.17.17.050, 17.:,17:060; or 17.17.070"of this chapter for more than
72 hours.
B. Type of offense. Any person who violates f Iselctions 17.17.040 17.17.0- 0,
17.17.060; 17.17.070; or 17 17.075 o this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. Violations
shall be punishable as 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.
y
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) -- Attachment 7
Page 3
SECTION 3. Sections Added:
Add Section 308.4 to the Uniform Administrative Code (Section 15.04.010) to read as follows:
MA Storage of Solid Waste Containers,
All new Group R, Division 3 occupancies for which a building permit application is`submitt
after the effective date of this ordinance shall provide a space adequate in.size to store and scree
all solid waste containers when viewed from the public right-of-way. The storage area shall h
minimum dimensions of Meet by 8-feet or 64eet by 6-feet and shall not conflict with req I
�arking spaces. If the storage area is located in the front .yard setback.established by othe,
ordinances, the storage area shall be screened by,a fence, partition or other. enclosure
ompliance with maximum height limitations.. In no,case shall a artition or enclosure require
this section be less than 484nches in bei t
Add Section 17.17.075 to read as follows:
7.17.075 Neighborhood Preservation.
t shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person, firm or corporation; owning, leasing
cupying, or having possession,of any private property in the City to maintain such property i
uch a manner that any of the followin conditions are found to exist thereon
1. Buildings, which are left in an unreasonable state of abandonment and noticed, pard
destruction; or partial construction. An unreasonable .state is defined as any building o
structure that has been formally noticed in this condition for oneear or more, an
substantially detracts from the appearance of the`iminediate neighborhood
_ Paint or finish material on the exterior surface of a building or other structure that h
become so deteriorated, damaged,or unsightly as,,to,substantially detract from the appearanc
of the immediate neighborhood. For the purposes of this Chapter, "substantially shall
defined as the absence or deterioration.of a required'protective covering exceeding 25% o
the exterior surface area, including, but not limited to, chipping, curling,damaged or missin
�)aint. Exterior surfaces shall include gutters, downs uts _ , doors window, fences an
walls,
�
Broken,
deteriorated,
neglected,excandonesi or substantially defaced' structures, equipment
ry, ponds, p visually impacting on the neighborhood o
_resenting a risk to public safety,or nuisance attractive to children. For the purposes of this
hapter, "nuisance attractive to children" shall_mean any condition, instrumentality o�
nachmie located in a.building or on premises; which is or may be unsafe or dangerous t
�hildren by reason of their inability to appreciate the peril therein, and which may reasonabl
be expected to attract children to the premises and risk ipjurj�y playin wi or on it
i4. Parking lots, driveways, paths or other paved surfaces, except when located in a rear or sid
yard of a single family dwelling,. which contain substantial cracks, potholes- or othe
deficiencies posing a risk of harm to the public f—
`t 7
Ordinance No. (2002 Series) Attachment 7
Page 4
5. Trees, weeds, or other types of vegetation that are dead, decayed, infested, diseased
overgrown, or harbor rats or vermin and are visible from a public right-of-way.For th
purpose of this chapter, "qyqWqwn" is limited to lawns or weeds over 12" in height;
.................................
§.. Buildings, structures, or other surfaces upon which graffiti exists. Graffiti, as used in
Chapter, shall mean defacement, damage, or destruction by the presence of paint, ink, chalk4"
e,or other similaz substance; or by carving,etching,or other engravin
Any violation of the provisions of a conditional use permit, planned development permi
�7architectural review approval,variance or other IE%d use entitlement or landse
u�penn;iit
8. Maintenance of property in such condition as to be detrimental to the public health, safety,o�
general welfare in such a manner as to constitute a public_nuisance as defined by Civil Cod�
...........—------
Section 3480
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of the Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) 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.
INTRODUCED on the day of 2002, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of
2002, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Allen K. Settle, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
elo
/fWGl- orgsen,(91y Attorney
Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 ME 1 2 (DAWMA
4-2-02 ITEM #I
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu
March 27, 2002
Re: Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance II -- April 2 Council Age a
CS3tJNCIL DD DIR
City Council RECEIVED VIA FAX � O FIN DIR
Cit of San Luis Obis o o ❑ FIRE CHIEF
y p ORNEY 13 PW DIR
990 Palm Street MA2%' 2 20.12 CLEKONG d POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ❑ ETijEADS ❑ REC OIR
SLO CITY COUNCIL urlL OIR
Dear Council Members: Q HR DIR
I urge you not to enact much of what is before you in the name of "neighbor ood
enhancement."
For many of these proposals, it is difficult to understand the need for these ordinances.
Rather than responding to true community problems, these ordinances seem to be pet
projects of individuals who are unconcerned about and/or don't understand their
broader civic implications and the new problems their enactment will create.
I hope you have the courage to just say no. The number of voters who truly care about
any of this is minuscule, and need not be a part of your judgmental calculus. The
number who stand to be hurt, on the other hand, or subjected to arbitrary harassment, is
large, and should be of concern.
Finally, it is unclear that we will have a better community if the provisions discussed
below are enacted.
In specific, I urge you to reject the following:
- 10.36232 Enforcement (of parking districts). The existing ordinance (enforcement by
complaint) is just fine, and the way things should be. Parking districts are special
interest districts -- at least the way the city has used them in neighborhoods other than
the Alta Vista area. The city should not obligate itself to step up enforcement by making
enforcement "regular and routine" rather than by complaint. To do so would simply
stretch scarce personnel further, diverting them from more important things. The city
lacks the manpower to deal with truly important neighborhood quality and safety issues,
like highway-speed speeding, stop sign running, and heavy trucks cutting through
neighborhoods. Only after genuine safety and quality issues like these are dealt with
should the city consider making neighborhood parking enforcement "regular and
routine."
Schmidt, Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance, Page 1
Richard Schmidt If 5444247 GW3/27/2 01:37 PM p 2/4
• Section 308.4 Uniform Administrative Code (storage of solid waste containers). The
only reason for this is esthetic. But has anyone considered how ugly the city will
become if the current commercial and multi-family requirement for ugly, intrusive
garbage screens were expanded to include single family properties? The solution is
more ugly than the problem. This is just dumb.. Furthermore, for a city supposedly
concerned about sustainability, has anyone considered how many board feet of
second and old growth timber will be needed to accomplish this screening? This is a
waste of precious resources. This sort of esthetic policing has no legitimate purpose.
You should understand that the ordinance now before you evolved from one that would
have applied these screening standards to every property in the city. That was the
original proposal from the individuals behind this. Staff apparently caved by suggesting
the standard apply to those properties without a constituency -- undeveloped ones. You
should complete this "devolution" and reject this new ordinance in its entirety. We don't
need a city populated by ugly garbage container screens.
• 17.17.075 subparagraphs 1 through 6. Please reject all of these.
• #1. Abandoned, unfinished buildings. Ah, come on. Is this really a problem? How
many of these do we have, anyway? And aren't there already means of dealing with
them if they truly pose a public hazard? This is just another way of making it
impossible for any but the rich to live in SLO, for excluding the do-it-yourself builder.
Can't we be more tolerant of one another? This ordinance is unnecessary.
Unnecessary laws shouldn't be passed -- they just clutter the code and lead to
enforcement and public trust problems.
• #2. Paint or finish material. There are numerous problems with this provision:
• The ordinance speaks to surface deterioration that "substantially" detracts from
the "appearance of the immediate neighbhorhood." This is a subjective issue,
and one the city ought not become involved in. I know of many new paint jobs
that I think substantially detract from the appearance of their neighborhoods.
Does that give me a right to get an ordinance passed punishing the taste of those
who own these bizarre and garish paint jobs? Of course not. So, how does that
differ from lack of paint? Lack of paint can stem from many causes; probably Mey
few of them have to do with landlords being cheap, which is the apparent
assumption of those behind this ordinance. If they want to do something
constructive, perhaps they should try to better understand the nature of the
problem they seek to attack, and find ways to help rather than punish. This
provision will simply give enforcement officers one more cudgel to use against
otherwise law-abiding citizens they happen to single out for arbitrary and
capricious enforcement. [I can offer personal testimony to any of you interested
in understanding just how subjective, arbitrary, capricious and indecent the city's
enforcement of existing neighborhood protection ordinances can be. Please call if
you care to hear more.] This is not a good thing for the city to become involved in.
• The ordinance then defines "substantially" as deterioration of 25% of the surface
area. The problem is that "substantially" in the previous sentence modifies
"detract," not "surface." This uWrammatical and illogical shift in subject makes the
entire section incoherent. The city ought not to even consider poorly written
Schmidt, Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance, Page 2
Richard Schmidt V 5444247 CM312712 01:38 PM D 3/4
t
ordinances.
• Finally, although a standard of 25% surface deterioration sounds objective,
consider the enforcement problems it creates. Is the city realloo Ding fo send out
staff to snoop on rip vete propertyto determine if 25% rather than say 24% of a
surface is deteriorated? You'd have to, for 24% will not stand up in court. Visually,
I'd defy any of you to tell the difference from a distance. Dick Frank just got
defeated largely because he had somebody look over Tom Fulks' fence. Any of
you ready for the sequel to that in your next campaign, as you try to defend
sending a city esthetic cop out onto private property to determine if 25% of a
surface is in fact deteriorated so you could bust the hapless owner who thought
only 20% was deteriorated?
• This provision is assinine. Don't enact it..
• #3. Broken, deteriorated neglected, abandoned or substantially defaced structures,
equpiment, machinery, ponds, pools or excavations.
Is this truly a significant issue, or just something else copied from the Beverly
Hills code?
Like #2 above, this paragraph is also incoherent. It starts out about the
items listed above, then segues into nuisances attractive to children, and ends so far
from where it started that it makes no sense. I would submit that every city-owned
bridge not in pristine, clean, undefaced condition would qualify as a nuisance
attractive to children, and you'd all be crooks if you pass this. That shows how silly
this ordinance is. Don't enact it.
• #4. Driveways. Why should the city care if private single family residential
driveways have cracks or potholes? Come on. Get off our backs.
• #5. Y_egn. The city doesn't have enough to do, so it now wants to patrol
private vegetation? (Didn't we decide that just patrolling vegetation along sidewalks
was more of a hornets' nest than we wanted to deal with? Anybody really want to
multiply that one with spades?)
The implications of this one surely haven't been studied. We want to prohibit
vegetation which harbor "vermin," which is bureaucratise for wildlife? So, do we
really intend to banish wildlife from our city? That is where this will lead.
Here's an example of what the vermin provision will mean. It will turn me into a
crook for owning a hollow tree where honeybees live. The honey bees pollenate fruit
trees for my whole neighborhood. Without them, we must hand pollenate. They are
"vermin."
More to the point, the vermin provision.ignores the fact we have urban
ecosystems that should be protected. Take the Murray Street palms as a real life
example. Pigeons nested in them. Then some roof rats moved in to live off the
pigeons and their eggs. That was one level of the verminous urban ecosystem. This
little ecosystem then attracted owls, who nested in the palms for over 20 years,
feeding on both rats and pigeons. We had a stable ecosystem that was wonderful to
have right in the city. Nobody caused any problems because it was all in balance.
Then some prissy outsider pedestrian complained to the city there was pigeon poop
and a few stray palm fronds on the Murray median. So the city dispatched its arborist
to trim the "overgrown" vegetation and deal with the "vermin." He came out during
Schmidt. Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance, Page 3
Richard Schmidt 11M 5444247 18113/27/2 01:40 PM p 4/4
1
spring owl nesting season, and wouldn't quit cutting despite the owls divebombing
him and neighbors pleading that he leave. The upshot is no more owls. An
ecosystem stable for 20 years was destroyed by the city's doing exactly what this
ordinance now says you will begin to do with regard to private property. This is a big
mistake, and really dumb. We don't need this ordinance. It will promote the
destruction of every ecosystem in town, including "overgrown" riparian ecosystems
(most do, after all, harbor 'weeds" in excess of 12 inches tall).
[In my opinion, and also in the opinion of many others, what we really need is an
ordinance by which the city will work with private landowners to maintain and
improve verminous vegetative habitat, to the point of requiring that it not be wantonly
destroyed. As things stand now, any yahoo can come in and mow down important
habitat, and nothing happens. The city, aware of the problem, looks the other way.
How about doing something about this instead of what's being proposed?]
• #5. Graffiti. This seems unnecessary, as well as unwise. Why criminalize the victim
of graffiti? Furthermore, as written, the ordinance would make graffiti crooks out of
little kids in my neighborhood, who regularly decorate sidewalks with chalk (often
ugly, sometimes beautiful). For the enforcement officer to reply that he will
distinguish between "true graffiti" and kids chalkings just underscores the
arbitrariness of this ordinance and of the enforcement it will lead to. (What are "true"
graffiti? The gang markings of Hispanic kids? Isn't that just a way of white people
making crooks of minority people? What about the construction jerks who with
impunity spray paint their ugly markings all over our sidewalks and streets with
fluorescent colors that last for years? Why not arrest them? Or better yet, arrest the
city council for allowing this ugly scrawl to exist on their streets? That's the
equivalent of what this ordinance proposes to do to private victims of graffiti.)
Anyway, the line between OK graffiti and prohibited graffiti is blurry, at best; several
years ago, Harry Abrams, publishers of expensive cocktail table books, did one on
graffiti. It got rave reviews in the art press.
This graffiti ordinance makes no sense, and the city shouldn't enact ordinances
that make no sense.
Thank you for your consideration of my contrarian views on these "neighborhood"
ordinances. I think I make the point that they embody only one minority view of what
constitutes a good neighborhood, not a civic consensus. If this minority view were only
applied to those who hold it, that would be one thing. But to apply their esthetic to
everyone raises serious equity issues. Please don't enact these ordinances.
I guess the ones I don't mention are basically OK, though the only one I enthusiastically
support is #7 of 17.17.075, which puts some teeth into the city permit process.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
Schmidt, Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance, Page 4
MEETING AGENDA
- _ z�z ITEM#-L _
zrr�ZUNCIL CDD DIR
C�0 ❑ FIN DIR
9�AO [0 FIPE CHIEF
ORNEY DIR
G LERK/DRi® 7 POLICE DHF
❑ 7 ❑ Ago 01A
UTIL[IIA
or CA!t;ua (3 HA DIR
il April 2, 2002
Mayor Allen Settle and
City Council Members
Due to Henry' s illness and being in the hospital, we are
unable to attend tonight' s meeting.
We are shocked to read that a change in the parking district
ordinance is being considered--that is, from a 55% majority
to a 67% majority. Since many neighborhoods are already
heavily student rentals and rife with problems, it is already
difficult to obtain signatures, in order to find parking in
front of one' s own home. The council has heard this time and
time again. Why would the council want to add to this
difficulty?
In the city of Los Angeles, if a block votes 51% for a
parking district , the signs go up automatically. No circus
display in front of the council . That is how it should be.
In our Alta Vista Neighborhood, when residents of Kentucky Cont block)
St_ wanted to change the hours because of Poly parking
encroachment , the whole district had to be polled. We all
think that is ridiculous. Please support our neighborhoods.
In regard to weed. abatement , this has been an ordinance
taking second place to party control since RQN was formed.
Please support this ordinance. The Fire Department is unable
to do anything regarding lawns and weeds, primarily at
student rentals .
The ordinance does not really apply to Richard Schmidt ' s home
since it is a maintained situation tho' appearing casual . We
are familiar with that situation and support it . It is not
the weed infested, tall grass situation that ruins
neighborhood ambiance and property values .
We ask that you support changes that will enhance our
neighborhoods . n6�
Henry & Doreen Case
244 Albert Dr.
RECEIVED San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405
20'2
SLO CITY COUNCIL
"FETING AGENDA
ITEM#®
From: "David Moore"<dwm@onemain.com>
To: <sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: 4/2/02 9:OOAM
Subject: Blight
I strongly urge the Council to approve the new rules for home maintenance and additions.
David Moore
1344 Sweetbay Ln.
7831863
C9UNCIL CDD DIR
0 13 FIN DIR
,,� POLICE CHF
AO 13 FIRE CHIEF
giPOLICE CHF
�-LERWCFIG ❑ PW DIR
❑ T HEADS ❑ R C oiR
❑ UTIL DIR
❑ HR DIR
F7RECEIIVED
2 2
COI.ILUNCIL
_ N, ING AGENDA J
DATE 2 OZ {TEM#____l
From: Carrie Bassford
To: Council
Date: 4/2/02 1:36PM
Subject: Municipal Code Amendments
Dear Council -As the person who has headed up the weed abatement program at the City Fire
Department for over 22 years, I urge you to please pass the yard standards to be presented by the RQN
at tonight's Council Meeting.
Over the years I have fielded thousands of telephone calls from unhappy property owners and residents
who would like to see some system in place that would enhance the appearance of their neighborhoods. I
have done hundreds of inspections and I am 100%sympathetic to their concerns and feel passionately
that something needs to be done.
Thank you.
CC: Bryn, Robert; Neumann , Bob
CQ'JNCIL DD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
DIA RE CHIEF
TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
❑ CLERK/ORID LICE CHF
❑ T HEADS ❑ PEC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
p HA DIR
Q
` RECEIVED
fiRl O ? 2117
SLO CITY COUNCIL
CApr 02 02 05: 021 rl" do 8n5-783-7729 p. 1
Fpr 02 02 02:53p HS1 Student Government JUbJ Ybb-btbb p,e
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
Student Community
Liaison Committee
Cal Poly • aty of San Luis Obispo • Cuesta
RECEIVED
APR - 2 2002
April 2,2002
SLO CITY CLERK-- -
City Council Members aO UNCIL W= 01R
City of San Luis Obispof�' AO IN 011
990 Palm Street ®J�, AO C] FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 TTORNEY 0 AIR
MLERK/OR10 FAL.iCE CHF
❑ Ofxf HEA 13 RRA Dim
UTIL Did
Dear City Council Members, WIN
The Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance package was first reviewed as an agenda
item at the February 21, 2002 meeting of the Student Community Liaison Committee.
After members had the opportunity to bring the package back to their constituents for
review, it was further discussed at the March 14, 2002 meeting. On that date,a motion to
endorse the package passed by SCLC. Thus, SCLC recommends that the City of San
Luis Obispo Council Members adopt the Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance package
as written. Thank you for your consideration_
Sincer y,
Aa
g Hacker
Chair,Student Community Liaison Committee
ASI President,Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Executive Office,California Polytechnic State University. San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 • 805/756-1291 FAX: 805/756-6166