HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2015 Item 11 RowleyMI TNCII MFFT1N(r-
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods _
P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 RLEE
December 15, 2015
W 14
Subject: Update to Notification Standards
YiLC) + ITY C!
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods values the opportunity to comment on this very important
topic. Receiving clear and timely notification of proposed projects and of requests for atypical uses
in a residential neighborhood is an important aspect of Neighborhood Wellness.
Remembering back when streamlining was first proposed, it was the development community and
the various types of development permits that were addressed. Then the concept of streamlining
trickled down to even "minor' Use Permits, several of which can directly affect residents of our
established neighborhoods (i.e., high occupancy, homestays, home occupations, setback exceptions
and more).
Also at that time, these were called Notification Requirements, not Notification Standards. In fact
this is the first year since at least 1990 that the term Standards has been used in lieu of the term
Requirements. To the lay person a standard is something that is the norm, and is either met or not
met. A requirement, however, is something that must occur. This change in terminology is
troubling despite assurances from staff that there is no difference. The question then becomes, "If
there is no difference, why after more than twenty -five years has it been changed ?"
Additionally, it is extremely difficult to revoke a use permit, thus making the notification of pending
actions a very important aspect of the permitting process. Very few, if any, administrative use
permits have been revoked. Staff can supply you with the details regarding the number and types
of administrative use permits that have been revoked over the last few years.
The administrative use permit that has had the most disruptive effect on our neighborhoods is the
High Occupancy Permit. Previously, notice of a pending application for high occupancy was
provided to owners and occupants of only three properties —two on either side and one across the
street. Especially in our more impacted neighborhoods, this example could account for the low
response rate mentioned in Attachment c (Staff Analysis) to the staff report.
For example, a property on Stafford was granted a High Occupancy Permit last year; owners behind
this property were not notified and would have registered an objection. This year, with the added
tenant(s), there have been numerous noise violations at the Stafford house that have kept these
owners awake. Although high- occupancy homes are not the only homes to receive noise violations,
there appears to be a direct correlation between the number of unrelated occupants in a residence
and committing noise violations. And it is not uncommon for the noise to travel beyond the
immediate vicinity, thus explaining our desire to expand the notification distance for this particular
permit even further than 100 feet.
1
Regarding this most recent noticing update, RQN is aware of and greatly appreciates the amount of
time and effort staff has made to lengthen the noticing times and distances. Staff has been quite
innovative in their approach and we thank them for finding a way to ensure that at least 7 days
notice is provided for the "minor" use permits, for extending the minimum noticing distance to 100
feet and for including additional information /clarification in the Notes.
Presumably because of space considerations and the desire to keep this document to one page, a
few previously specified items have been omitted. Some of the items are of special interest to city
residents (Projects & Demolition on Historic Sites); some are included, but because of special
significance, deserve to be a separate line item (High Occupancy Permit). These two items can
easily be incorporated on the current chart.
In summary, for the reasons given above, request the following minor changes be made to the
document:
1. Reinstate the term "Requirements" in the title so that the document reads Notification
Requirements. Since the list includes items that are not development projects (e.g., Homestays,
Home Occupations, High Occupancies, School Tenant Permits, Special Events), the title "Notification
Requirements" seems appropriate.
2. Without adding rows to the document, recommend these additions be made:
a. Row 9, change to read Projects /Demolitions in Historic District /Site. Not all historic sites are
within the Historic District. Since Demolition on Historic Resources Sites was not carried over from
the 2008 version of the list, adding " /Site" will advise residents who are interested and involved
with our historic resources that these procedures will apply to historic sites, too.
b. Include a separate row for High Occupancy. A vacant row can be created in the vicinity of
row 22 by condensing Homestay to two rows.
3. In addition, we ask that you look at further expanding the noticing distance for high occupancy
permit requests and consider adding "Minimum" to Notification Requirements.
We thank you for your time and consideration of these comments and recommendations.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN