HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-2017 PC Correspondence - Business Item 1 (Rowley)September 13, 2017
SUBJECT: Zoning Regulations Update - Table of Contents Outline
Dear Planning Commissioners,
My major concern is that I and other laymen are able to understand and follow the changes, additions and
deletions that will be made to these regulations. Having a simultaneous and extensive revamping of the
structure of the regulations makes this even more difficult.
I would appreciate some additional information about the proposed process:
1. Is it the consultants intention to reorganize the current (2015) Zoning Regulations “as is” with no new
changes, additions, deletions?
2. If so, what mechanism or mechanisms will be in place to ensure nothing has been overlooked, i.e.,
unintentionally omitted?
3. How long will the general public have to review and understand how to use the new format, i.e., where
to find things, before changes are made to it?
4. The MIG Memo (page B1-2) states, “ This outline serves as a guide to the reorganization since a red-
lined version of the comprehensive update reorganization will not be prepared.” What, exactly, does this
mean? How will the public know what has moved where?
5. Are we “stuck” with the new structure as presented or will there be other opportunities to make
adjustments?
Also, request the following chapters that were recommended for deletion be retained and integrated into
the outline: 17.20, 17.060 and 17.93. Also request chapter 17.060 be renamed Urgency Interim Regulations
and that the appropriate California Government Code(s) be listed.
1. 17.060, Other Requirements. This paragraph is only superfluous if one knows there are set standards
and procedures for prezoning and urgency interim regulations. Developers would know this; the general
public would not. Since The Zoning Regulations are supposed to be helpful to the general public as well as to
developers, this chapter should be retained. Also, it would be helpful if a list of the applicable state codes
were included for reference.
2. 17.20, Residential Occupancy Standards and 17.93, High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations. The
rationale for removing these chapters is that they may conflict with federal fair housing law. That also means
they may not be in conflict with it. It is far easier to omit regulations than it is to add them. If it is later
determined that one or both of these regulations is in conflict with the federal fair housing law, it/they can
be omitted at that time.
3. Additional information, 17.93. Decades ago our citizenry brought this ordinance to the City Council. It
is based on parking, i.e., two parking spaces in the garage, two parking spaces in the driveway and one on the
street. This is the basis for the limit of five unrelated adults. If this chapter were to be removed “with the
stroke of a pen” during an update and without further research, notification and public hearings, it would be
perceived by many as an end-run around the wishes of the citizenry.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
Sandra Rowley
SLO Resident