HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-2015 Item 18 -LakemanCOUNCIL MEETING:__QI R " QUI 5
ITEM NO.:___ alnAUG 19
From: Sandra Lakeman[mailto:sandralakemanCgbgmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 9:26 PM ��-�
To: James Lopes; Mark Lakeman; Diane Duenow; Diane Brown; Dixie Cliff; Allan C; iza eqIh n ,CLERK
Elisabeth Abrahams; Joeseph Abrahams
Cc: E-mail Council Website
Subject: Re: August 18, 2015 Council Meeting: Item No. 18 - Public Engagement and Noticing Manual
City Council and Jamie Lopes:
I would like to add one other Item to the list prepared by Jamie Lopes.
Any Appeal done on a project should not be divided up between ARC, CHC, and the
PLANNING COMMISSION so that three appeals would have to be made. If an Appeal is started
it should cover all committees or commission studies and decisions. Otherwise the Appellants
would have to pay 3 times the $273 and that would be almost a $1,000 dollars. It seems also to
me that this is not a Democratic process for citizens to have to pay to bring a troublesome project
before our elected officials, as the only way that they would be aware of them and the only way
that they will see a project prior to its construction. Otherwise, they would not even have the
opportunity to see the projects before they are implemented and totally constructed. This part of
the whole process for approving new development projects needs to be revised.
Sincerely, Sandra Lakeman
Sandra Davis Lakeman
Emeritus Professor of Architecture
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
mailing address:
1677 Foreman Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805 541 3223
www.sandralakeman.com
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, James Lopes <jameslopes(cr�,charter.net> wrote:
August 18, 2015
RE: August 18, 2015 Council Meeting: Item No. 18 - Public Engagement and Noticing Manual
Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members:
I support the recommendations of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods for extending the time
frames and locations of public noticing. Residents of the city are regularly caught up short due
to inadequate distribution and timing of notices. The deadlines for staff reports should be
extended in proportion to these noticing deadlines. The public is not engaged as consulting
administrators; we need time to review reports and make recommendations to you and other
bodies which are timely for you as well
In addition to the RQN recommendations, I have the following suggestions regarding Exhibit A
which I hope you will concur with and direct staff to implement:
1. ARC - Minor and Incidental notice is 5 days before the decision, and only to the owner and
neighbors, and no legal ad. This should be expanded to properties within 300 feet and include a
legal ad. The 5 days should be expanded per RQN to 10 days.
2. CHC - Projects and demolitions - This notice is for 10 days but only to owners and the
neighbors. It should be for 14 days and to properties within 300 feet.
3. CHC - Change in Historic District Boundaries is for 10 days, which should be expanded to 14
days
4. Use Permits - Administrative should be expanded to 10 days .
5. Use Permits - Downtown Housing Conversion should be changed from owner/neighbor notice
to a notice to properties within 300 feet.
6. Use Permits - Planning Commission or City Council is for 10 days which should be extended
to 14 days.
7. Variance is for 5 days which should be expanded to 10 days with notice to l2roperties within
300 feet.
Thank you for considering my suggestions and those of RQN.
Jamie Lopes
James I ope s
1336 SwEet Bay Lane
Sacs Luis Obis:)o, C -3=1o3
Ph} 805'-'781-8960