HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/1994, 1 - TA 33-94: AMENDMENTS TO SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW DETACHED, LARGER UNITS IN SOME CASES, CHANGE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, AND MAKE OTHER MINOR CHANGES. 1 -
�oINN��IIIVIIIII�III IIUII� M UG D
san �Uis osispo Uc� o ATE:
MB
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT �"'NUMBER: /
noId Jonas, mmuni yeve opmenDirector /,?o
BY: Judith Lautner, sociate Planner
SUBJECT: TA 33-94: Amendments to second residential unit
regulations to allow detached, larger units in some
cases, change the parking requirement, and make other
minor changes.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Pass to print an ordinance concurring with the negative declaration
of environmental impact and amending the zoning regulations, to 1)
allow larger, detached second residential units through an
exception process, 2) amend the parking requirement, 3) add
findings for approval of units and exceptions, 4) delete the
limitation on expansion of existing floor area., and 5) correct some
typographical errors; as recommended by the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant wants to add a second dwelling to her lot, over an
existing garage that is detached from the primary residence. She
also would like the unit to be larger than the maximum 450 square
feet currently allowed. The second unit regulations require that
second units be attached to the house, and provide for no exception
process for this particular requirement (although there is a
process for allowing larger units) . Therefore, the applicant is
requesting amendments to the second unit regulations to allow
detached, larger units. Staff is recommending additional changes.
ordinance amendments are reviewed by the Planning Commission and
acted upon by the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed
the request on April 27 and May 11 and recommended approval (5-1,
Cross voting no) of amendments, as modified by the Commission (see
attached May 11 Planning Commission staff report) . The dissenting
commissioner wanted to see additional language added to the
ordinance restricting rents on second units, and possibly limiting
the number of persons allowed to live in these units (see minutes,
attached) .
Proiect description
See description in attached Planning Commission report.
Evaluation
1. Findings. State law requires that zoning texts and maps be
consistent with adopted general plans. As noted in the
attached April 27 Planning Commission report and discussed
further in the environmental initial study, the second unit
regulations and the proposed changes are consistent with the
a'
�����► ►�111►il�ip��u�►����I city of San LUIS OBISp0
i 3PPUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Amendments to second residential .unit regulations
Page 2
City's adopted and proposed Land Use and Housing Elements. To
adopt the proposed changes, the City Council is required to
make findings that the amendments are consistent with the
General Plan, and that the City Council concurs with the
Negative Declaration of environmental impact. These findings
can be made.
2 . Planning commission action.
Each amendment is discussed in the attached April 27 and May
11 Planning Commission reports. For a thorough understanding
of what was requested by the applicant, and what was
recommended by staff, Councilmembers should read these reports
as well as the discussion of the Planning Commission's action
below:
Larger size. detached units. The Planning Commission
supported allowing larger and detached units in special
circumstances. That commission felt that there could be
compatibility issues if detached, larger units were permitted
in every case. Therefore, the Commission recommends retaining
an exception process for units larger than 450 square feet,
and recommends creating an exception process to allow detached
units when special physical conditions exist.
Parking. The current regulations say that parking for second
units is to be provided in accordance with property
development standards.. In the R-1 zone, two spaces are
required per dwelling, regardless of size. In the other
residential zones, parking is based on the number of bedrooms
in a unit, and one space is required for a studio apartment
(450 square feet) .
What this means is that two spaces are required for a second
unit in the R-1 zone, while only one space is required in all
other residential zones. Staff recommended correcting this
inequity by requiring one space in all cases. The Planning
Commission, concerned that larger units would mean more people
and more cars, recommends that one space be required for units
up to 450 square feet in area, and two spaces for units larger
than 450 square feet.
New findings. During its review of the amendments, the
Commission discovered that specific findings, beyond those
required for any use permit, were not required to be made to
approve a second unit. The Commission liked the findings
included in the city of Pacifica's second unit regulations,
and recommends that some of Pacifica's findings be
incorporated into our regulations.
^���►►�►IaIIIIIII��� ��Ulli city of San tUis OBIspo
NM9;3QP. UNCIL AGENDA REPORT
en eats to second residential unit regulations
Page 3
Second-story units. The city of Santa Cruz prohibits second-
story units when the primary unit is all one-story. The
Planning Commission felt this would be a good provision, but
recognized that some site features, such as uneven topography
or existence of a creek, . may make such a requirement
unreasonable in some cases. Therefore, the Commission
recommends inclusion of such a prohibition, but allowing
exceptions to be made by the Architectural Review Commission.
Percentage increase. The Planning Commission agreed with
staff that the current percentage limitation on increases in
existing floor area serves no useful purpose, and recommends
that it be eliminated.
Other changes. The section requiring architectual review is
recommended by staff and the Commission to be changed to be
consistent with architectural review requirements for other
projects. See the attached report for an explanation of the
change. The Commission also pointed out some typographical
errors.
3 . Mitigation measures. The initial study includes two
mitigation measures: that the City Council should 1) discuss
the potential for many second units to be added to a small
geographic area, and alternative means of limiting impacts
from this possibility; and 2) consider adding a requirement
for lockable bicycle storage in second units, or other means
to encourage use of alternative transportation..
These items are discussed in the April 27 Planning Commission
staff report in some detail, on page 4, under the heading,
"Some neighborhood preservation strategies". The Planning
Commission discussed these issues and concluded that there is
little potential for large numbers of second units to be added
to the city, much less to a neighborhood. There was no
support for requiring lockable bicycle storage, because
traffic impacts were determined to be insignificant overall.
If the City Council finds that the proposed changes will have
a significant impact on the density or traffic in
neighborhoods, and amends the initial study by imposing
additional mitigation, then the ordinance will need to be
revised to reflect this decision.
4 . citizen concerns. Staff has received letters from two
citizens and one citizens' group opposing most of the
recommended changes (attached) . Generally, the opposition is
based on a perception that second units will increase the
density in neighborhoods to a degree that will be noticeable,
and that any relaxation of existing regulations will create
3
�uH�► ►I�IIIII�IIi SIU crty of San tins OBIspo
EM"QPUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
mendments to second residential unit regulations
Page 4
significant compatibility problems.
The Planning Commission's recommendations are a response to
citizen concerns, as well as a recognition of the needs of
applicants for second units. The Commission noted that very
few legal second units have been built in the ten years the
regulations have been in effect (although the April 27 PC
report says 18 have been built, further investigation
determined that six of these were in fact second residences on
large lots, a different category) , and that the likelihood is
small that a large number of legal second units will be built
in this city. The regulations allow these units only on
conforming lots, where the primary unit is a conforming
building. This means that second units would not be permitted
on most lots in many older neighborhoods, where lot sizes are
smaller than now required and where parking is not up to
current standards or houses are built closer to the property
line than is now permitted. The regulations also require
additional parking for second units. These requirements have
so far prevented these units from having a significant
detrimental impact on neighborhoods, and should continue to do
SO.
Some of the opposition appears to come from general discontent
with other regulations or existing situations, such as the
high-occupancy residential regulations or illegal second
units, which do not have additional parking and where the
owner does not live on the property. The proposed amendments
will have no effect on other regulations, but it is possible
that some illegal units could be converted to legal units, if
all standards can be met. In those cases, the primary issue
raised by residents (lack of parking) would be addressed.
Citizen Participation
Special notice of the first Planning Commission hearing was given
to Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and the San Luis Drive
Neighborhood Association due to their interest in the character of
residential neighborhoods. In addition, staff followed-up the
notice with a phone call and offered copies of the staff report
before it became available to the ' Planning Commission. Finally
staff offered to have a meeting with these groups to discuss the
applicant's desired text changes. A meeting was held with RQN to
discuss the changes before the matter went before the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission continued the matter to May 11, 1994 to
allow staff time to modify the ordinance package to address
commission concerns. Once revised language was complete, staff
phoned a representative of RQN, San Luis Drive Neighborhood
����h�►�►►�IIIII�IIp° ��IIU city of San tins OBISpo
PUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Amendments to second residential unit regulations
Page 5
Association, and the Old Town Neighborhood Association and offered
advanced copies of the revised amendments. Again, staff offered to
meet with these neighborhood groups to explain the text changes
which was attended by representatives of RQN.
A representative from the San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association
spoke at the Planning Commission hearing expressing her concerns
over "loosening" of the existing second dwelling unit regulations.
RQN was not present at the hearing so staff presented their
detailed concerns to the Commission verbally based on their meeting
with staff.
Notice of the Council hearing was also sent to these three
neighborhood groups. Early copies of the Commission recommended
language was made available for neighborhood group review.
Attached:
Draft ordinance
April 27 and May 11 Planning Commission reports and attachments
(includes environmental initial study)
Draft Planning Commission minutes - April 27 and May 11, 1994
Letters in opposition to changes
ORDINANCE NO. (1994 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT REGULATIONS
TO ALLOW LARGER AND DETACHED SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
CHANGE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, AND MAKE OTHER
MINOR CHANGES
(TA 33-94)
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider
the zoning text amendment request TA 33-94, amending the second
residential unit regulations as shown on Exhibit A. attached; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings;
Findings•
1. The proposed amendments conform to the general plan.
2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the
Community Development Department on April 14, 1994 , that
describes environmental impacts associated with the text
changes. The Community Development Director, on April 19,
1994, reviewed the environmental initial study and granted a
Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation.
The initial study concludes that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, and the City
Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and finds that
it reflects the independent judgement of the City Council.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental determination. The City
council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration, with mitigation, of environmental impact adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed zoning text change, and reflects the independent judgement
of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 2. The zoning text amendment TA 33-94, as shown
on Exhibit A, attached, is hereby approved.
SECTION 3 . A summary of this ordinance, together with
the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be
published once, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in
Ordinance no. (1994 Series)
TA 108-93 : Citywide
Page 2
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 AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of
1994, on motion of , seconded
by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
1 YU2�f�teN Q/I1 GO_n11n.✓� �U„ A'len.J)
dity Attorn
14- 7
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT
- Chapter 17.21
SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Sections:
17.21.010 Purpose.
17.21.020 Definitions.
17.21.030 General requirements.
17.21.040 Performance standards.
17.21.050 Procedure requirements.
17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations.
17.21.010 Purpose.
A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.1 ), (.2),
which allows the city to conditionally permit second dwelling units in residential
zones.
B. The city intends to regulate second units as permitted by Section 65852.2(a) of
the state Government Coe, and other applicable sections.
C. The city recognizes opportunities to implement certain policies and programs of the
city housing element of the general plan by providing for and regulating second units.
D. Implementation of this chapter is meant to expand housing opportunities for
low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of
rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to
provide liveable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship
and family support for the occupants. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1004
- 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9900)
17.21.020 Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings
given them in this section:
A. "Administrative use permit" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.58 of this code.
B. "Director" means the directorof the community development department or his
designate.
C. "Nonconforming lot" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.12 of this code.
�Xfl1P�CT fir' � ��6
D. "Nonconforming use" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.10 of this code.
E. "Primary unit" means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms
with all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter.
F. "Second unit" means an attached 'or;';`detachdwelling unit which provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all
provisions of this chapter. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping,
eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit is sited. (Ord.
1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9910)
17.21.030 General requirements
A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or
procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
B. Areas Where Second Units are Allowed. Upon approval of an administrative use
permit and upon meeting other requirements of this section, second units may be
established in the following zones: R-1 , R-2, R-3, and R-4.
C. Areas Prohibited. Second units shall not be established in any condominium or
planned development project, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park, and
under no circumstances shall a second unit be allowed, where in the opinion of the
director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by Chapter 2.44 of this code.
D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or second unit must be owner-occupied.
E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a
second unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements of
zoning and subdivision regulations. Nothing in this section shall prohibit joint
ownership of the property where a second unit has been established.
F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where
a second unit has been established if the property is sold'. All conditions of the use
permit, restrictive covenants and other contractual agreements with the city, shall
apply to the property and new owners.
G. Unit Type Allowed. A second unit shall be attached to the primary unit and
located within the living area of the primary unit. : heneye
Tttefannrrig Commission may gtar) ar~ exceptfon to this regbrrernent to aJlovsc a
#acttecf untr .when the �oltovvrrig ,frnd�rlgs carp �e made;
.:..,...,h,.i•:�:::,..;;2::.q::s::;::;:.r,..�.:.r....,:::,::;: _i;R:<.: .i;:::::..;::�::;je.;:.:;.;:s::N
e purpose of this.chapter„is served
2...." ..B.......CI...p.....
u. .s...e.. " physical
h aI. ;§ teI e, :0!bph6nt4f. an at
tac . e ; second
uni :js
sir M:hsIIlV.jhfeasJ
..........
..........%........le an this......... pariicuaar
................. ......
H. Size of Second Unit. The gross floor area of the second unit shall not exceed four
hundred fifty square feet. The pPIanning 6:C. :ommission may authorize an exception
to this standard by use permit upon finding that:
1 . The purpose of this chapter is served=;.W
2. Gtfiet eeFnpliaFiee with the sipe HFAitatieig vveuld (a) FeqU;Fe sigAifieaAt StFbIetHFal
Fnedifieetiens that Yveuld fiet l3e Fequifed ethefwise! eF (b) adveFsely affeet an histefie
EIF E)MhiteetbfFally sigRifeeant building.
..........
.............
�:8, h I t the
surround CI M
X.
n and detract from A esingle.4M
I aracter:a:n appearance.....
gf
.
.. '- .:.:::.:...................:.:.r. ... ............:..
...
...... ............ ......
PS: PQR story units'are pr . ed..
W....... . ......
th
ff
XN
... ... .............
. V: e' . '
...I7
...
.. h M .. ..p. .
.
o'. '-D' 'edtor ay::a
Mh
arE
.......
: .eW. hr fiAd"AR ..........
.
.. .
% 'THpmedd $t o t t pawygl� h.
e.ip,jma. . .. .......
.......
X
(Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1034 - 1, 1985: Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984:
prior code - 9920)
17.21.040 Performance standards.
A. Parcel Requirements. No second unit shall be established on a parcel or parcels
determined by the director to be nonconforming as defined by the zoning and
subdivision regulations.
B. Use Requirements. No second unit shall be established where the director has
determined that the primary unit or any other structure or use on. the property is
nonconforming as defined by Chapter 17.14 of this code.
C. Design Standards. Second units shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations
such as height, yards, PaFkift :H.Q. building coverage, ete., except for densityartd
ire e defined by zoning regulations. One;:>parjg;apace;a ;al <be
....... ..............
eq S
k requirements
paces#or larger
U
unrtsL in t
M, n 0s a thm
W
1. Second units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes.
2. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances
"/0
from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said
regulations for any other use.
3. Second units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide
a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
4. Second units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the
primary unit. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code - 9930)
17.21.050 Procedure requirements.
Prior to filing building plans with the city building department, the following shall be
met:
A. Permit Requirement. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use
permit as defined by zoning regulations.
B. Architectural Review Required. All requests shall receive architectural review in
accordance with the adopted architectural review commission ordinance and
guidelines. The director shall determine, upon receiving ""
a complete application,
whether the project is declared p'; st# a att � .........n; :Car minor or incidental,
be forwarded to the architectural .review com-mission for review. to , or shall
C. Application Contents. All proposed second unit requests shall be by formal
application for administrative use permit and eFehiteettffel Fevie
D. Additional Requirements.
1 . Owners Agreement with the City. The owner shall enter into an agreement with
the city, on a form approved by the city attorney, agreeing that the property will be
owner-occupied. If owner occupancy is not possible, then the use will terminate, and
the structure will be returned to its original condition to the satisfaction of the
director.
Property owners receiving approvals for second units and establishing the use
pursuant to this section shall also agree to reimburse the city for costs of all necessary
enforcement actions.
2. Recorded Agreement Affecting Use of Property. The applicant shallsubmit an
agreement that will provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property,
of the use and owner occupancy restrictions affecting the property. Upon approval
of the administrative use permit and architectural review, the applicant shall prepare
the final copy of the agreement for the director's review in a form suitable for
recording in the office of the county recorder.
E. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be the same as set forth for
r,9 4141
administrative use permits as defined in the city zoning regulations. (Ord. 1004 - 1
(part), 1984: prior code - 9940)
`!7,21055 Fmdmgs
To grant a use permit fo'r ax. second <residential unit, the::Director 'or :Planning
.
nrrrrtfiss�ort, or :ort a eaa, the Ci
»xH: µapp _ ty Gouncilr must make the following findings
Y•......iF:'::%�::_::.ii.. ..:.:ii:!.i:Jii'K:.i:.iii:ii:..iii:iYi:i::.i:!.ii:in...:::::.i'.:::.:::.i:::.::::.::::::.:::::::::.:::ry:.:::::'...::.:::.:.�nv:.�.:::;:.:::• ......... ................. ..... .. ...
7 l+he unit is vrsga:.y Integrated and aesthetically'compat�ble with the mam dvvellirag
. .:
i11ti# .
2H> T:e location and orrentati�ri of the second :unit wilt not rnaterrally ,reduce the
rruacy otherwise enjoyed by residents of adjoining g%perttes
iii.::.. ..::::.::.:.:::::::::::::::::::.:::.:.,.:.:..:,.::..::::.::::.::. :............................__..........................._..........
3 Thi second unix w�li nox create excesstue ground coverage of t�verutiiization :J he:
a �ars comparison with the existing j�atterns an the surrounding neighborhood
17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations.
A. Periodic Review. Use permits are shall be subject to review after the first year and
each three years thereafter. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to
initiate the review and pay applicable fees.
B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for revocation of the
use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.72. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code
- 9950)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISt 10N STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1
BY: Judith Lautner, j iate Planner MEETING DATE: April 27, 1994
FILE NUMBER:. TA 33 94
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
SUBJECT: Amendments to second residential unit regulations, to allow detached, larger units, and
to change the parking and periodic review requirements.
RECOASZENDATION
Recommend adoption of staff-recommended changes to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant wants to add a second dwelling to her lot, over an existing garage that is detached from
the primary residence. She also would like the unit to be larger than the maximum 450 square feet
currently allowed. The second unit regulations require that second units be attached to the house, and
provide for no exception process for this particular requirement (although there is a process for allowing
larger units). Therefore, the applicant is requesting amendments to the second unit regulations to allow
detached, larger units. Staff is recommending additional. changes.
Data Summary
Address: Citywide
Applicant: Bertha Dodge
Representative: Robert Fisher
Zoning: affects all residential zones
General Plan: all residential designations
Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted by Director on
Project action deadline: No mandatory deadlines for legislative actions
Site description
The second unit regulations apply to all lots containing single detached dwellings in all residential zones.
Project Description
The applicant is requesting
1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling;
2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to
51%;
3. that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 800 square
feet.
/ �13
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 2
Community Development Department staff is recommending instead:
1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling;
2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to
15%, or eliminated altogether;
3. that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 640 square
feet;
4. that one parking space be required for second units, rather than requiring that parking "conform to
all zoning regulations" standards;
5. that the requirement for periodic use permit review be eliminated and replaced with a note that the
use permit may be reviewed if reasonable complaints are received.
EVALUATION
1. What is a second tinit' A "second unit", as defined by state law, is "an attached or a detached
residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more
persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation
on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated." The City's definition says a second
unit is "attached", but is otherwise virtually identical to the state definition.
2. They are not "second residences". The City allows the development of more than one dwelling
on a parcel in the R-1 zone, with approval of an administrative use permit. Density restrictions
.apply. In other words, a second residence may be placed on an R-1 lot only when the lot contains
at least 12,446 square feet (up to 7 dwellings per acre are allowed in the R-1 zone). There are no
occupancy or size restrictions for such residences.
"Second residential units", on the other hand, are exempt from density standards. Either the
primary or the secondary unit must be owner-occupied, and at present the units are restricted in size
to 450 square feet, and must be attached to the main residence.
3. Some history. The State passed a law in 1982, that allowed local agencies to adopt ordinances
regulating second units or prohibiting them altogether. If such an ordinance were not adopted by
July 1983, the law said that cities would have to accept applications for second units, and approve
them if they met specific standards listed in the law.
Few jurisdictions have prohibited second units. The state law requires certain findings to be made
to prohibit such units. According to Section 65852.2.(c) of the Government Code, the City must
find that an ordinance allowing second units "may limit housing opportunities of the region" and
further, that "specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare" would result from
implementation of such an ordinance. It would be difficult for this City to make legally-defensible
findings of this nature.
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 3
In February 1984, the City adopted regulations for "second residential units". The regulations were
amended the following year by the addition of a size limit. Since 1984, 25 applications for second
units have been received. Of these, seven expired, were withdrawn, or mere denied. Eighteen were
approved.
4. What are the current requirements' The City's second unit regulations allow only units that are
attached to the primary dwelling, and limit the size to 450 square feet. When the primary dwelling
is to be enlarged to create a second unit, that increase can not exceed ten percent of the existing
floor area. The regulations say that second units "shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations
such as height, yards, parking,...". This means that in the R-I zone, two parking spaces are
required for a second dwelling (every dwelling in the R-1 zone requires two spaces, regardless of
size), while in higher-density zones, one space is required. The ordinance requires use permit
review every three years, after the first year, to assure that all conditions are being met. (The full
text of the regulations, including other requirements, is attached to this report.)
5. Why change them" The applicant wants to be able to move into a second unit, about 800 square
feet in area, over an existing garage, and allow her family to live in the primary dwelling. The
regulations do not allow second units to be detached under any circumstances, although they do
allow for exceptions to the 450-square-foot size limit. Therefore, she has requested changes to the
regulations to allow detached and larger units. (Please note that, although the applicant has
submitted packets of information on her particular site to the Commission, her specific
situation is not being reviewed at this time. The application is solely for revisions to the
ordinance. If changes are approved, she may apply for a use permit under the new regulations.)
The intent of the second unit regulations is "to expand housing opportunities for low-income and
moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within
existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to provide liveable housing at less cost while
providing greater security, companionship and family support for the occupants." (section
17.21.010.13) It appears that the existing regulations may be unduly restrictive, in light of the above
purpose and the number of applications received. Few low-density lots in the city can accommodate
four parking spaces. The ten-percent restriction on expansion favors larger homes, which can be
more easily divided to create a separate unit within the living space. The size restriction limits the
use of these units to those who are more transient or have few possessions.
Staff supports detached units for those situations where attached units are infeasible or impractical.
Detached "granny units" above garages are also a typical component of "neo-traditional"
neighborhoods. Staff is recommending a 640-square-foot limit because it is a size that allows for a
separate bedroom, but is not overly-large and could therefore likely tit on most lots. Staff supports
elimination of the ten-percent floor increase limitation because such a limitation tends to prevent
owners of smaller homes from having second units. The recommendation for elimination of
mandatory 3-year review comes from the Hearing Officer's determination that such review is
unnecessary to determine compliance with conditions and it adds paperwork that costs the applicant
and the City. The parking space requirement is consistent with requirements of other cities and
reasonable, given the type and size of unit.
114
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 4
6. Whai might come of the changes? The number of applications for second units might be expected
to rise as a result of the recommended changes. However, the ordinance would still include
requirements that would prevent its use for purposes that were not intended: the owner-occupancy
requirement assures that the property owner lives un the lot; the parking requirement assures that
at least three parking spaces will be available; the 640-square-foot limit will allow for longer-term
tenancy as well as occupancy of the smaller unit by elderly property owners, such as the applicant.
7. General plan consistency and neighborhoods. The second unit regulations are consistent with
General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, as noted in the attached initial study. The
adopted and proposed elements do not specifically address second units, nor are any of the policies
or programs in conflict with provision for such units. However, during review of the draft Housing
Element, the City Council deleted recommended programs to encourage such units as a means to
meet housing goals. This action and Council discussion suggests that some Councilmembers see
these units as a threat to neighborhood preservation and enhancement.
The city contains approximately 8,300 detached single dwellings. Eighteen of these, or about 0.2%,
contain legal attached second units. The number of illegal attached or detached units is unknown,
but enforcement records (averaging 50 units abated per year over the past four years) indicate that
the number is far larger than the number of legal units. It may be the presence of lots containing
illegal units, which in most cases are not owner-occupied and often do not contain any off-site
parking spaces, that gives "second units" a bad name among some citizens.
The proposed changes are not likely to have major effects on the number of illegal units. They will
make it easier for citizens to create (or legalize) a unit for elderly parents or teenage children, or
a small rental unit to help subsidize house payments. Although our ordinance does not control rents,
it is apparent that these small units do provide economical rental housing.
8. Some neighborhood preservation strategies. There are some potential negative effects that may
come of proposed changes. The following paragraphs outline the concerns and what may be done
to address them, if considered significant:
Too many units in one neighborhood. The 18 approved units are to be found in virtually every
residential neighborhood in the city. Four of the 18, however, are in one newer subdivision: Tract
858, the 48-lot subdivision on Prefumo Canyon Road at the southerly city limit. This subdivision
contains large homes on large lots, making it ideal for the addition of attached second units. Most
of the four were developed as homes for elderly parents or other family members. At this time,
these four appear to pose no threat to this neighborhood.
In other parts of the city, several units on one block may lead to noticeable increases in traffic,
especially if the units are rented to young persons with automobiles. This is an unlikely situation,
but it may still be advisable to consider ways to deal with such a case:.
a. The regulations could include additional amendments to require separate, lockable bicycle
storage for new units, or additional parking spaces could be required in parking-permit
neighborhoods. The regulations could contain spacing requirements, or a total number per
block, to prevent the development of second units on every lot. Staff does not support
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 4
6. What might come of the changes? The number of applications for second units might be expected
to rise as a result of the recommended changes. However, the ordinance would still include
requirements that would prevent its use for purposes that were not intended: the owner-occupancy
requirement assures that the property owner lives on the lot; the parking requirement assures that
at least three parking spaces will be available; the 640-square-foot limit will allow for longer-term
tenancy as well as occupancy of the smaller unit by elderly property owners, such as the applicant.
7. General plan consistency and neighborhoods. The second unit regulations are consistent with
General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, as noted in the attached initial study. The
adopted and proposed elements do not specifically address second units, nor are any of the policies
or programs in conflict with provision for such units. However, during review of the draft Housing
Element, the Citv Council deleted recommended programs to encourage such units as a means to
meet housing goals. This action and Council discussion suggests that some Councilmembers see
these units as a threat to neighborhood preservation and enhancement.
The city contains approximately 8,300 detached single dwellings. Eighteen of these, or about 0.2%,
contain legal'attached second units. The number of illegal attached or detached units is unknown,
but enforcement records (averaging 50 units abated per year over the past four years) indicate that
the number is far larger than the number of legal units. It may be the presence of lots containing
illegal units, which in most cases are not owner-occupied and often do not contain any off-site
parking spaces, that gives "second units" a bad name among some citizens.
The proposed changes are not likely to have major effects on the number of illegal units. They will
make it easier for citizens to create (or legalize) a unit for elderly parents or teenage children, or
a small rental unit to help subsidize house payments. Although our ordinance does not control rents,
it is apparent that these.small units do provide economical rental housing.
8. Some neighborhood preservation strategies. There are some potential negative effects that may
come of proposed changes. The following paragraphs outline the concerns and what may be done
to address them, if considered significant:
Too many units in one neighborhood. The 18 approved units are to be found in virtually every
residential neighborhood in the city. Four of the 18, however, are in one newer subdivision: Tract
858, the 48-lot subdivision on Prefunro Canyon Road at the southerly city limit. This subdivision
contains large homes on large lots, making it ideal for the addition of attached second units. Most
of the four were developed as homes for elderly parents or other family members. At this time,
these four appear to pose no threat to this neighborhood.
In other parts of the city, several units on one block may lead to noticeable increases in traffic,
especially if the units are rented to young persons with automobiles. This is an unlikely situation,
but it may still be advisable to consider ways to deal with such a case:
a. The regulations could include additional amendments to require separate, lockable bicycle
storage for new units, or additional parking spaces could be required in parking-permit
neighborhoods. The regulations could contain spacing requirements, or a total number per
block, to prevent the development of second units on every lot. Staff does not support-/V
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 5
spacing or block limitations, because such requirements can place staff in the awkward
position of allowing some units and prohibiting others simply because they applied at a later
date. The city of Santa Cruz currently has spacing requirements (units are allowed to be no
closer than 300' apart) but is in the process of amending the regulations to eliminate that
provision and instead limit the total number of approvals per year.
b. The Hearing Officer can add requirements for such bicycle storage or additional parking on
a case-by-case basis. This alternative would require no additional amendments.
A change in character. If detached units are allowed, one concern may be with the addition of units
above garages. Where the primary house is already two-story, such an addition would be consistent
in character. Where the primary house is one-story, a two-story addition would be more prominent.
The city of Santa Cruz prohibits second-story additions when the primary dwelling is all one-story.
Our ordinance could include such a provision.
One-story detached units are usually going to be located behind the primary dwelling, and are not
likely to have any impact on the overall neighborhood character. Many homes in the community
have accessory buildings, such as shops or art studios.
Noise. Additional units mean additional people, and maybe more noise. Noise has not been a
concern with the existing legal units, perhaps because the property owner lives on the site and can
monitor it.
9. How does our ordinance compare with others? Staff contacted eight other jurisdictions (seven
cities and one county) in doing research for tris report. Of the eight, one has prohibited second
units altogether (Monterey), one effectively prohibits such units by limiting where they can be
placed (Santa Barbara City), and the six remaining cities and county (Grass Valley, Chico, Santa
Barbara County, Arroyo Grande, Santa Cruz, and Palo Alto) allow detached units larger than 450
square feet (size limits range from 400 SF for a 4,000-SF lot to 1,000 SF for a larger lot, with the
most common limit 640 SF). Most of these cities require one parking space for the second unit.
Regulations were customized to the types of lots and residential zones in the particular jurisdiction.
A large number of other jurisdictions have ordinances allowing second units. These eight were
chosen for similarities (small college cities, "quality-conscious" communities, central coast area) and
for differences (size, location). No scientific methods were used in making these choices.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the amendments. If the City Council agrees with
the recommendation, then the current ordinance will remain in effect.
The Planning Commission may recommend approval of changes different from what the applicant or
staff are recommending.
The Planning Commission may recommend adoption of an ordinance eliminating the second unit
ordinance altogether and prohibiting second units. Special findings most be inade. If the Commission
/ x`'47
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 6
is considering this alternative, staff recommends that the hearing be continued to allow Community
Development and legal staff to develop findings that may be defensible.
The Commission may continue action. Direction should be eiven to staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT CONIINIENTS
The request was not routed to departments, although the Utilities Division was consulted in the
development of the environmental initial study.
Attached:
Environmental initial study, including applicant's request and legislative draft of staff-recommended
amendments (includes complete text of current regulations)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMIrSS10N STAFF REPORT ITEM x 2
I
BY: Judith Lautnerr�Associate Planner MEETING DATE: May 11 , 1994
FILE NUMBER: TA%33-94
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
SUBJECT: Amendments to second residential unit regulations to allow detached, larger units in some
cases, and to change the parking requirement.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend adoption of changes, as modified by the Commission, to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The Planning Commission first reviewed proposed changes to the second residential unit regulations on
April 27, 1994, and continued action, with direction to staff. Staff has followed this direction in the
development of changes to the proposed amendments.
Data Summary
Address: Citywide
Applicant: Bertha Dodge
Representative: Robert Fisher
Zoning: affects all residential zones
General Plan: all residential designations
Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted by Director on
Project action deadline: No mandatory deadlines for legislative actions
Site description
The second unit regulations apply to all lots containing single detached dwellings in all residential zones.
Project Descriuhon
The applicant is requesting
1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling;
2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to
51%;
3. that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 800 square
feet.
Community Development Department staff previously recommended instead:
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 2
1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the primary dwelling;
2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to be expanded be increased from 10% to
15%, or eliminated altogether;
3. that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be increased from 450 square feet to 640 square
feet;
4. that one parking space be required for second units, rather than requiring that parking "conform to
all zoning regulations" standards;
5. that the requirement for periodic use permit review be eliminated and replaced with a note that the
use permit may be reviewed if reasonable complaints are received.
EVALUATION
1. The Planning Commission wanted to move more cautiously. Most Commissioners generally
supported changes to the existing second unit regulations. However, they were wary about making
significant changes, without some built-in restraints. The Commission therefore asked staff to return
with revisions to the text to 1) allow easier exceptions to the second unit size limit, 2) allow
detached units in certain cases, 3) eliminate percentage limits on floor area increases, 4) require
additional parking for larger units, and 5) prohibit second-story units when the primary unit is one-
story. Each of these recommended changes is discussed below.
2. Allow easier exceptions to the 450-SF size limit. Staff recommended a 640-SF size limit for
second units, instead of the existing 450-SF limit. Some Commissioners felt that the size of the unit
should depend on the size of the lot, and that in some cases fairly large dwellings could be
appropriate. To allow for some discretion in reviewing unit sizes, the Commission recommended
loosening up the required findings to allow larger units.
Presently, to allow a unit larger than 450 SF, the application must be referred to the Planning
Comission for an exception. The exception may be granted if the following two findings can be
made:
1. The purpose of the second unit chapter is served.
2. Strict compliance with the size limitation would (a) require significant structural
modifications that would not be required otherwise; or (b) adversely affect a historic or
architecturally significant building.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission be able to approve size limit exceptions, based on
the following findings:
1. The purpose of the second unit chapter is served.
l �-ao
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 3
2. The unit's size and design are compatible with the primary residence and will be compatible
with the neighborhood.
3. Exceptions to allow detached units. Commissioners generally supported allowing detached units.
but felt that such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. Staff recommends that detached
units be allowed when the following findings can be made:
1. The purpose of the second unit chapter is served.
2. Development of an attached second unit is infeasible or impractical in this particular case.
4.. The Commission supported elimination of limits on increased floor area. Our present ordinance
says that the floor area of the primary unit may be increased no more than ten percent to allow
development of an attached second dwelling unit. This limit tends to penalize owners of small
homes. The limit can also be ignored if the property owner first applies for an addition, then
chooses to add a kitchen. The limit serves no useful practical purpose. Staff has amended the
regulations to eliminate the percentage limit, as requested by the Planning Commission.
5. Let's require an additional parking space for larger units. There was concern among some
Commissioners that a larger second unit would mean more people would live in it and more cars
would need parking spaces. . To address this concern, the Commission asked that the ordinance
require one parking space for units up to some particular size limit, then require two spaces for
larger units.
For simplicity, staff is recommending a requirement of one parking space for units up to 450 SF
in area, because 450 SF is the size limit recommended by the Commission, and an additional space
for units larger than 450 SF. Staff would support requiring only one space for units up to 640 SF,
however.
6. The Commission wanted one-story units where the primary unit is one-story. To address
neighborhood compatibility concerns, the Commission asked that staff add a prohibition of second-
story second units where the primary unit is only one-story. Staff supports a slightly modified
approach, to allow consideration of second-story units in unusual situations. For example, a second
unit over a garage may be a better solution for a site that is constrained by unusual topography or
a creek, or where for some reason little usable open space is available. Staff recommends,
therefore, that second-story units be prohibited on lots with single-story homes, but that exceptions
may be granted through the architectural review process.
7. Review retained. Staff had recommended elimination of the mandatory review requirement. The
Commission preferred to leave the requirement intact, at least until we have some experience with
the recommended changes. The review requirement has been retained.
8. ARC options have changed. Staff is recommending including the option to find a second unit
project "aesthetically insignificant", thereby allowing architectural review without a formal
application. The. "aesthetically insignificant" option is one that was not available when this
ordinance was written, and is intended to be used when a project is so minor that a planner can
TA 33-94
Second Unit Regulations amendments
Page 4
readily approve it "over the counter". In the case of second units, this determination may be made
when few or no changes are proposed to the exterior of a residence, or the.second unit will be
virtually or actually invisible from the street.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the amendments. If the City Council agrees with
the recommendation, then the current ordinance will remain in effect.
The Planning Commission may recommend approval of changes different from what the applicant or
staff are recommending.
The Planning Commission may recommend adoption of an ordinance eliminating the second unit
ordinance altogether and prohibiting second units. Special findings must be made. If the Commission
is considering this alternative, staff recommends that the hearing be continued to allow Community
Development and legal staff to develop findings that may be defensible.
The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The request was not routed to departments, although the Utilities Division was consulted in the
development of the environmental initial study.
Attached:
Draft amendments, as modified by Planning Commission direction
Environmental initial study, including applicant's request and legislative draft of staff-recommended
amendments (includes complete text of current regulations)
Chapter 17.21
SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Sections:
17.21.010 Purpose.
17.21.020 Definitions.
17.21.030 General requirements.
17.21.040 Performance standards.
17.21.050 Procedure requirements.
17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations.
17.21.010 Purpose.
A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.1), (.2),
which allows the city to conditionally permit second dwelling units in residential
zones.
B. The city intends to regulate second units as permitted by Section 65852.2(a) of
the state Government Coe, and other applicable sections.
C. The city recognizes opportunities to implement certain policies and programs of the
city housing element of the general plan by providing for and regulating second units.
D. Implementation of this chapter is meant to expand housing opportunities for
low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of
rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to
provide liveable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship
and family support for the occupants. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1004
- 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9900)
17.21.020 Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings
given them in this section:
A. "Administrative use permit" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.58 of this code.
B. "Director" means the director of the community development department or his
designate.
C. "Nonconforming lot" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.12 of this code.
D. "Nonconforming use" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.10 of this code.
/ �-a3
E. "Primary unit" means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms
with all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter.
...................................
F. "Second unit" means an attached be..: detached. dwelling unit which provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all
provisions of this chapter. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping,
eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit is sited. (Ord.
1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9910)
17.21.030 General requirements
A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or
procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
B. Areas Where Second Units are Allowed. Upon approval of an administrative use
permit and upon meeting other requirements of this section, second units may be
established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4.
C. Areas Prohibited. Second units shall not be established in any condominium or
planned development project, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park, and
under no circumstances shall a second unit be allowed, where in the opinion of the
director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by Chapter 2.44 of this code.
D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or second unit must be owner-occupied.
E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a
second unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements of
zoning and subdivision regulations. Nothing in this section shall prohibit joint
ownership of the property where a second unit has been established.
F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where
a second unit has been established if the property is sold. All conditions of the use
permit, restrictive covenants and other contractual agreements with the city, shall
apply to the property and new owners.
G. Unit Type Allowed. A second unit shall be attached to the primary unit and
located within the living area of the primary unit. `"'h....,.....- 819 IneFease in fleeaFea
-
.
l'#is rung CoMrtussron may grant ars exceptir�r .t hfis regvirerraent t¢<allovy a
ur at, u+r
an:the:fo3tow� f nd'in can a made;
'> Aas...8... 'S c apte is se .
2 f]ev t iprnent,;of,an attached secAr d unit is tnfeas�bie or irnpracticaI I this particula[
::.............:.:.....................::...............:..::...................:::..............:.::...:...........................................................................................:...................
Juga _..
� �-a�
H. Size of Second Unit. The gross floor area of the second unit shall not exceed four
hundred fifty square feet. The pPlanning eCommission may authorize exception to
this standard by use permit upon finding that:
1 . The purpose of this chapter is served:
......................................................................................................................................................................................... ..... ........................................
2:;. Tha �tnrt`s size and;des�g are compailte v +nth the primary residence and:wi(I be
p�ompatible u+rith the neighborfrood
I .:Secoci+ story units :Second storyunits are pip( i#�rted nrhere the prrrr�8ry unit ss al€
ane-story The Archi#ecturak Review Coinmrssror� or Qrrec#or may authorize an.
exc+ pbDn to this star. and upon finding that
3: m"!f s$cor�d story second unat rs aest>tieticatty compatib#e witr the primaryti nit and
th ne€a boyhood
(Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1034 - 1 , 1985: Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984:
prior code - 9920)
17.21.040 Performance standards.
A. Parcel Requirements. No second unit shall be established on a parcel or parcels
determined by the director to be nonconforming as defined by the zoning and
subdivision regulations.
B. Use Requirements. No second unit shall be established where the director has
determined that the primary unit or any other structure or use on the. property is
nonconforming as defined by Chapter 17.14 of this code.
C. Design Standards. Second units shall conform to all.applicable zoning regulations
such as h:11eight, yards, , artd building c
g fig- g overage, except for density ani
parliffi requirements as defined by zoning regulations. `Orr& paw:rpt space,,s. be
f}rGvided fnr a scorn# Onrt u0 450 squsire deet to ar+e$; attd tr�rc spceS #or Larger
iiia adtlt#rort to tttase spaces required for Xm
therirnary
::We
1 .
1 . Second units shall conform to all applicable building. and construction codes.
2. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances
from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the. extent allowed by said
regulations for any other use.
3. Second units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide
a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
4. Second units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the
primary unit. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984; prior code - 9930)
17.21.050 Procedure requirements.
Prior to filing building plans with the city building department, the following shall be
met:
A. Permit Requirement. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use
permit as defined by zoning regulations.
B. Architectural Review Required. All requests shall receive architectural review in
accordance with the adopted architectural review commission ordinance and
guidelines. The director shall determine, upon receiving complete application, whether
the project is declared a`es etcaj( rrsi""nifica'n. minor or incidental, or shall, be
.."'.: :::::::::.........:. ....:::::.:...5 .
forwarded to the architectural review commission for review.
C. Application Contents. All proposed second unit requests shall be by formal
application for administrative use permit and afehiteetbFel Feyie
D. Additional Requirements.
1 . Owners Agreement with the City. The owner shall enter into an agreement with
the city, on a form approved by the city attorney, agreeing that the property will be
owner-occupied. If owner occupancy is not possible, then the use will terminate, and
the structure will be returned to its original condition to the satisfaction of the
director.
Property owners receiving approvals for second units and establishing the use
pursuant to this section shall also agree to reimburse the city for costs of all necessary
enforcement actions.
2. Recorded Agreement Affecting Use of Poperty. The applicant shall submit an
agreement that will provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property,
of the use and owner occupancy restrictions affecting the property. Upon approval
of the administrative use permit and architectural review, the applicant shall prepare
the final copy of the agreement for the director.'.5 review in a form suitable for
recording in the office of the county recorder.
E. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be the same as set forth for
administrative use permits as defined in the city zoning regulations. (Ord. 1004 - 1
(part), 1984: prior code - 9940)
17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations.
A. Periodic Review. Use permits are shall be to review after the first year and
each three years thereafter. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to
initiate the review and pay applicable fees.
B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for revocation of the
use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.72. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code
- 9950)
city of San LUIS OBISpo
®= INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION Citywide APPLICATION NO. 33-94
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendments to second-unit regulations to allow detached units. to allow
existing floor area to be expanded by a greater amount. to allow larger units simpiify arkingand
eliminate mandatory periodic review.
APPLICANT Bert Dodge
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION ^ X —MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED I JUOI 115 ffUtTREQ Clate Planner —ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQApr. �U'I ED
1994
PREPARED BY D DATE J
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECT R'S ACTION: DATE
M
SUMMARY OF INITIALS UDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
H.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... INTONE*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NONE*
C. LAND USE ...................................... ............................... NONE
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............................................... NONE*
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ NONE
F. UTILITIES........................ ................... NTam*
G. NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... NONE
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NONE
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... YF_S
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. N(1NF
KPLANT LIFE......... ............................................................. N psm
L ANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... MINE
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL'HISTORICAL ................................................... �,ICN2
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... N9NE
0. ENERGY(RESOURCE USE .................. . . . ................. .................... NI1NE*
P. OTHER ............ .. . ..... ....................... .................... ........... ITTO�IIr*
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH A4ITIGATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT /
�� 5845
ER 33-94
Citywide: zoning regulations text amendment
Second Unit regulations
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant wants to amend the City's second unit regulations, to
allow second units to be as large as 300 square feet, to be
detached from primary units, and to allow floor area expansions up
to 51% of the existing building. Community Development staff is
suggesting changes to these same criteria, plus the parking and use
permit review requirements, and some changes intended to clarify
language.
Specifically:
The applicant requests three things:
1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the
primary dwelling;
2 . that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to
be expanded be increased from 10% to 51%;
3 . that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be
increased from 450 square feet to 800 square feet.
Planning staff recommends:
1. that the second unit be allowed to be detached from the
primary dwelling;
2. that the percentage of existing floor area that is allowed to
be expanded be increased from 10% to 15%, or eliminated
altogether;
3 . that the maximum allowable size of the second unit be
increased from 450 square feet to 640 square feet;
4. that one parking space be required for second units, rather
than requiring that parking "conform to all zoning
regulations" standards;
5. that the requirement for periodic use permit review . be
eliminated and replaced with a note that the use .permit may be
reviewed if reasonable complaints are received.
The applicant's and staff's recommended text changes are attached
to and made a part of this report.
i �-ag
ER 33-94
Second unit regulations amendments
Page 2
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Community plans and goals
Adopted land use element:
The adopted land use element (1977) does not specifically address
second units. None of the policies for residential development are
in conflict with existing or proposed second unit provisions .
Conclusion: No impacts.
Proposed land use element:
The Planning Commission-approved draft (February 1994) of the land
use element (as yet unadopted by the City Council) also does not
address second units. None of the proposed policies or programs
conflict with existing or proposed second unit provisions.
Conclusion: No impacts.
Adopted Housing Element:
The adopted housing element (1986) encourages infill and
intensification of existing neighborhoods, plus programs that will
reduce the cost of housing for many residents. These policies and
programs are consistent with the existing and proposed second unit
regulations. The amendments. will loosen restrictions on second
unit design, and thereby should encourage development of additional
second units on lots where they currently would be difficult to
create. The changes would likely result in a minor increase in the
housing supply for renters, and could also improve homeowners'
ability to afford primary units.
Conclusion: No impacts.
Proposed Housing Element:
In addition to language encouraging infill .and intensification,
similar to the existing housing element, the proposed element
includes a description , of "accessory apartments" , that defines
second units as "a common and relatively inexpensive form of
housing that allows households to accommodate extended families,
and allows elderly persons to share large homes, or rent small
studio apartments attached to a main house" . The element contains
no programs either to promote or eliminate second units. The
proposed changes would not conflict with this element.
Conclusion: No impacts.
/ �-30
ER 33-94
Second unit regulations amendments
Page 3
Population distribution and growth
The amendments will make it easier for homeowners to create second
units on their conforming lots. If o:•+ners take advantage of the
changes, more second units may be created each year than have been
in the past. Over the past four years, 13 permits for second units
have been issued, an average of three per year. It is likely that
the proposed changes will increase the average number of second
unit applications received per year. The increase is not expected
to have a significant impact on population distribution.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Transportation and circulation
The addition of second units to neighborhoods contributes
incrementally to traffic levels on existing streets. The proposed
changes will make it easier to create second units or to make
existing illegal units legal. Therefore, a greater number of units
may be added to the housing stock than the present three-per-year
average. Because of requirements for owner-occupancy of one of the
units, and the need to provide parking for each unit, the number of
applications is not expected to increase significantly.
Each new unit will add approximately 6 trips to the adjacent street
traffic per day. Even the least-used streets in the city
experience between 100 and 200 trips per day. An increase of 6
trips would be a 3 to 6% increase on those streets, and well below
those percentages elsewhere. The increase in numbers of second
units is not expected to add significantly to existing traffic
levels, although if several units . were added to a block, the
impacts may become significant over time.
Conclusion: Less than significant. In unusual cases, there
may be a significant impact from the development of several
second units in a concentrated area.
Recommended mitigation: The city Council should discuss the
likelihood of many second units being added to a small
geographic area, and alternative means of limiting the impacts
from such an eventuality. Alternatives may include requiring
mandatory spacing between units, allowing a maximum number of
units per block, and setting a maximum number of second unit
approvals per year.
Utilities
Adding units to older neighborhoods may have an impact on water or
sewer resources . The current regulations prohibit second units
"where in the opinion of the Director, a resource deficiency
ER 33-94
Second unit regulations amendments
Page 4
exists" . Each second unit application is routed to the City' s
Utilities Division. If that division identifies a resource problem
that cannot be corrected as part of the permit process, the unit
will not be allowed. This prohibition is not proposed to be
changed. Therefore, these amendments will not affect the City' s
water or sewer capacity. Note that a water allocation must be
secured for each new unit, usually obtained by retrofitting
plumbing fixtures in other buildings in this city to save water.
See discussion under "Energy or resource use" , below.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Air duality and wind conditions
Further development incrementally adds to traffic loads and
consequently, to air quality degradation. Individual impacts are
insignificant, but, although unlikely, cumulative impacts may be
significant. Methods to reduce the air quality impacts should be
considered when these regulation amendments are reviewed.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation: The City Council should consider
adding a requirement for lockable bicycle storage in second
units, or other means to encourage use of alternative
transportation.
Enerav or resource use
Water: The City's Water Allocation Regulations allow water to be
allocated to new development only when such water allocation does
not affect the city's supply. This can happen only if the new use
replaces a similar use of a similar size, or if water is provided
by some other means to replace that used. One method, allowed by
the regulations, to obtain additional water is to retrofit existing
plumbing fixtures within the city limits. The City allows a
developer to replace fixtures to save approximately twice as much
water as the new development is expected to use.
With these regulations in force, water allocated to new development
will not have a detrimental effect on the available supply.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Other impacts
See discussion above, under "air quality and wind conditions" .
The project is not expected to have impacts on any other aspect of
the environment.
ER 33-94
Second unit regulations amendments
Page 5
RECOMhIENDATION
Grant a negative declaration, with the following
Mitigation measures
1. The City Council should discuss the likelihood of many second
units being added to a small geographic area, and alternative
means of limiting the impacts from such an eventuality.
Alternatives may include requiring mandatory spacing between
units, allowing a maximum number of units per block, and
setting a maximum number of second unit approvals per year.
2 . The City Council should consider adding a requirement for
lockable bicycle storage in second units, or other means to
encourage use of alternative transportation.
Attached: applicant- and staff-proposed amendments
/ �-33
ROBERT S. FISHER,
An Architectural Corporation
Architect C-17280
8425 ATASCADERO AVENUE
ATASCADERO, CA. 93422
TEL. & FAX 605-461-4804
Tpity nrV '-;4 ii,c (^.�.,en�
Communi t Develorr;ent Department
RE. 'Lome T est Afiienurylent
Gocy;e ��5�den��
16 214 r!i i I Ii P, Lane
San Luis Cbispo, C,--'%
The Applicant requests the following zone text changes from Chapter 17.21
- Second Residential Units:
i 7.21.00 Definitions
Section F. "Second Unit" add the words "or detached" after the
word "attached" in the first line.
17.21 030 Gr-nerai Requirements
SecTiory G "Unit Type Allowed" add the words "or detached
from" after the words "attached to" in the second line.
Delete the words "and shall be located within the living area of
the primary unit.", from the second, third, and fourth lines.
Chanoe the word "ten" to read "fifty-one" in the fifth line of
this section.
Section LJ,. "Size of Second Unit." Change the ,vords "four
nundred fifty" to read "giant hundred".
Sincerely,
�h1C �, r tint
Pober, 5. , Sher, . r„n,....,rt y,.p
Agent for .Applicant /&U) f'- �' tl ozod
� ��3�
Chapter 17.21
SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Sections:
17.21.010 Purpose.
17.21.020 Definitions.
17.21.030 General requirements.
17.21 .040 Performance standards.
17.21.050. Procedure requirements.
17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations.
17.21.010 Purpose.
A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.1 ), (.2),
which allows the city to conditionally permit second dwelling units in residential
zones.
B. The city intends to regulate second units as permitted by Section 65852.2(a) of
the state Government Coe, and other applicable sections.
C. The city recognizes opportunities to implement certain policies and programs of the
city housing element of the general plan by providing for and regulating second units.
D. Implementation of this chapter is meant to expand housing opportunities for
low-income and moderate-income or elderly households by increasing the number of
rental units available within existing neighborhoods. Second units are intended to
provide liveable housing at less cost while providing greater security, companionship
and family support for the occupants. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1004
- 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9900)
17.21.020 Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings
given them in this section:
A. "Administrative use permit" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.58 of this code.
B. "Director" means the director of the community development department or his
designate.
C. "Nonconforming lot" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.12 of this code.
D. "Nonconforming use" is defined as defined by Chapter 17.10 of this code.
SQA f - �rop0seCQ
E. "Primary unit" means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms
with all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter.
F. "Second unit" means an attached or .detached dwelling unit which provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and complies with all
provisions of this chapter. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping,
eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary unit is sited. (Ord.
1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9910)
17.21 .030 General requirements
A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or
procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
B. Areas Where Second Units are Allowed. Upon approval of an administrative use
permit and upon meeting other requirements of this section, second units may be
established in the following zones: R-1 , R-2, R-3, and R-4..
C. Areas Prohibited. Second units shall not be .established in any condominium or
planned development project, or any mobile home subdivision, or trailer park, and
under no circumstances shall a second unit be allowed, where in the opinion of the
director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by Chapter 2.44 of this code.
D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or second unit must be owner-occupied.
E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a
second unit has been established unless the subdivision meets all requirements of
zoning and subdivision regulations. Nothing in this section shall prohibit joint
ownership of the property where a second unit has been established.
F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where
a second unit has been established if the property is sold. All conditions of the use
permit, restrictive covenants and other contractual agreements with the city, shall
apply to the property and new owners.
................
G. Unit Type Allowed. A second unit shall be either attached to the primary unit efl
the let and shall be located within the living area of the primary unit arae ac.hed<fr'o'
F t!A:S.:i.Ymtrc. �. .
tie p �mary unit.'and 1o.cated on the:same Jot as,the existing dvveihng. Whenever an
increase in floor area is involved, it shall not exceed�t fifteen percent percent of the existing
living area.
H. Size of Second Unit. The gross floor area of the second unit shall not exceed #etr
..............
sM*hundred#i4W forty square feet. The planning commission may authorize exception
to this standard by use permit upon finding that:
1 . The purpose of this chapter is served:
o-34
2. Strict compliance with the size limitation would (a) require significant structural
modifications that would not be required otherwise: or (b) adversely affect afi historic
or architecturally significant building. (Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord. 1034
- 1 , 1985: Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code - 9920)
17.21.040 Performance standards.
A. Parcel Requirements. No second unit shall be established on a parcel or parcels
determined by the director to be nonconforming as defined by the zoning and
subdivision regulations.
B. Use Requirements. No second unit shall be established where the director has
determined that the primary unit or any other structure or use on the property is
nonconforming as defined by Chapter 17.14 of this code.
C. Design Standards. Second units shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations
such as height, yards, paking, and building coverage, except for density
p.arR ng requirements as defined by zoning regulations. One:::;' ark a '" 'ace>5haii< be
ptovadrrd #or #hea secon.:d ung#, m ad.dM. Jon to those spaces required for the primary
dwetim
1 . Second units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes.
2. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances
from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said
regulations for any other use.
3. Second units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and provide
a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
4. Second units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the
primary unit. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984; prior code - 9930)
17.21..050 Procedure requirements.
Prior to filing building plans with the city building department, the following shall be
met:
A. Permit Requirement. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use
permit as defined by zoning regulations.
B. Architectural Review Required. All requests shall receive architectural review in
accordance with the adopted architectural review commission ordinance and
guidelines. The directorshall determine, upon receiving complete application, whether
the project is declared aestt'etcal.. nsignifica'nt minor or incidental, or shall be
sj .forwarded to the architectural review commission for review.
� x-37
C. Application Contents. All proposed second unit requests shall be by formal
application for administrative use permit alid &6hiteetufal feviev.p.
D. Additional Requirements.
1 . Owner`s Agreement with the City. The owner shall enter into an agreement with
the city, on a form approved by the city attorney, agreeing that the property will be
owner-occupied. If owner occupancy is not possible, then the use will terminate, and
the structure will be returned to its original condition to the satisfaction of the
director.
Property owners receiving approvals for second units and establishing the use
pursuant to this section shall also agree to reimburse the city for costs of all necessary
enforcement actions.
2. Recorded Agreement Affecting Use of Poperty. The applicant shall submit an
agreement that will provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property,
of the use and owner occupancy restrictions affecting the property. Upon approval
of the administrative use permit and architectural review, the applicant shall prepare
the final copy of the agreement for the director's review in a form suitable for
recording in the office of the county recorder.
E. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be the same as set forth for
administrative use permits as defined in the city zoning regulations. (Ord. 1004 - 1
(part), 1984: prior code - 9940)
17.21.060 Periodic review - Violations.
A. PeFiedie Review. Use permits a'r'e shall be subject to review is::reaso. ffMrltteri
tte
Cora}rtts 2 ereceived by t)1e director
tMerea#er. 1 5 all be -he Fespensibility aff the Rer— initiate F.
and pay IV fees.
B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for revocation of the
use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.72. (Ord. 1004 - 1 (part), 1984: prior code
- 9950)
draft
Minutes
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission Meeting
April 27, 1994
PRESENT: Commrs. Mary Whittlesey, Barry Karleskint, Gilbert Hoffman,
Brett Cross, Grant Williams, Charles Senn, Chairperson Dodie
Williams
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Judy Lautner, Assoc. Planner; Ron Whisenand, Development
Review Manager; Cindy Clemens, Asst. City Attorney; and
Laura Murphy, Recording Secretary
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Item 1. Zoning Regulations Text Amendment: Appl.TA 33-94; An amendment to
the Zoning Regulations relating to second dwelling units; City-wide; Bert
Dodge, Applicant.
Judith Lautner presented the staff report, recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of a maximum unit size of 640 square feet, elimination of the
percentage increase, a standard parking requirement of one space per secondary unit,
and elimination of the mandatory three-year periodic review. She noted that staff and the
applicant support retention of the owner/ occupancy requirement, and that second units
only be allowed on conforming lots. She said that in the 10 years that the ordinance has
been in effect, 18 second units have been approved, of the 18 units, 12 have been newly
built (an average of about 1 per year).
Chairperson Williams opened the public hearing.
Robert Fisher, 8925 Atascadero Ave, Atascadero, applicant's representative, stated that
the applicant intends to build a cottage on an R-1 lot, for herself, allowing her son to
move into the existing residence. The applicant feels that the current language limits her
options for extended family living arrangements on the same property. He suggested that
the average of 1 to 3 permit requests per year suggests that the language is too
restrictive. In addressing other concerns, he stated that limiting the number of
applications per year could mitigate the traffic impact, air quality and other issues of
concern addressed in the regulations. He asked for approval of the size limit originally
requested by the applicant.
� �-3g
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1994
Page 2
Ray Nordquist,750 Pasatiempo, Co-Chairman of the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
(RON), personally agreed with the general concept of the applicants proposal, but he
presented the Commission with a letter from RON listing the group's concerns. RON was
concerned that the proposed changes would weaken the ability of the City to maintain
neighborhood compatibility and quality, and he questioned the City's ability to enforce the
owner-occupancy requirement. RON questioned future use of detached units when
owners no longer live at the site. Further RON concerns were that traffic and population
would increase. RON asked for a limit on the number of persons allowed to live in a
second unit.
Pat Veesart, 1570 Hansen Lane, SLO, opposed the zoning changes, and spoke about the
negative impact the changes might have on the transportation and circulation of the city.
He thought the proposed changes effectively would change R-1 lots into R-2 lots without
a plan in place to mitigate the negative traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods.
Patricia Young, 1846 Conejo, SLO, opposed the application. She lives next door to a
home with a second unit, as well as a three-car garage with a storage unit above, which
has been fitted out as an apartment. She said the owner of the property was within the
law. She had opposed permitting her neighbor's second unit to be rented, since the
result was three units on one lot in an R-1 neighborhood. She expressed concern that
the proposed changes would clear the way for more conversions, which would create
traffic and other problems. She also questioned the ability of the city to preserve the R-1
status of the city's neighborhoods.
Chairperson Williams closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked staff if it was possible to end up with three units on a lot.
Judy Lautner the way the ordinance is configured, only one second unit is allowed per
lot.
Commissioner Cross confirmed with staff that one parking space is required for a studio
apartment, and questioned if one space was sufficient for a second unit. He also
expressed concern about possible construction of driveways going to the back of the lot,
with no setback from the property line, and the impact on the neighbors.
Ron Whisenand addressed Commr. Cross' concerns. He explained that the one parking
space per unit requirement is sufficient, and is backed up by other communities'
experiences. He explained that many residential neighborhoods currently have driveways
which run next to the property line, between the house.and the property line, to the rear
detached garage. These traditional detached garages often have living units built above
them.
Commissioner Hoffman confirmed with staff that the current parking requirement for
residences is two spaces in an R-1 zone, one covered, and one uncovered, so if one
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1994
Page 3
.additional space is required, that will be a total of three. He also asked staff for the
working definition of "attached".
Judy Lautner explained that attached means it has to be a part or expansion of the actual
living area, not necessarily a garage, especially if the garage is not part of the residence.
Commissioner Hoffman confirmed that ARC review will continue to be required.
Judy Lautner said, in answer to a question by Commr. Karleskint, that owner-occupancy
provisions would be retained, and that there have not been any violations of that
provision. She also mentioned that the City requires a recorded agreement noting the
owner-occupancy requirement, so anyone purchasing the property knows what the
situation is.
Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concern about the character of second units, and
number of stories allowed, when the primary unit is only one story.
Judy Lautner said architectural review is required to resolve issues of neighborhood
compatibility, and those concerns probably would not have to be written into the
ordinance.
Ron Whisenand suggested that if the Commission is concerned with limiting second-story
units, that perhaps that should be written into the ordinance, such as allowing two-story
second units only with two-story primary units.
In answer to a question by Commr. D. Williams, Judy Lautner explained that the main
reason for the three- year review requirement is to remind staff to check that the property
is still owner-occupied, and that the correct number of parkingspaces are still available,
and with the current City computer system, a simple reminder can be automatically be
generated and followed up on, without formal review hearings.
Ron Whisenand added that the tracking and hearing process also takes up a lot of staff
time, and the applications have been 100% re-approved.
Commissioner Hoffman asked staff how many of the currently approved second dwelling
units had requested a size exception.
Judy Lautner said that she could only recall one or two.
Commissioner Senn asked if the City was going to provide more flexibility with the second
units, and that could be done with appropriate safeguards. He was concerned that sound
criteria be set down, and environmental considerations be addressed.
Chairperson Williams asked staff for a clarification of the types of tenants now occupying
the approved second units, and how many cars are involved.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1994
Page 4
Judy Lautner explained that about half of the second units are occupied by elderly
parents, and half are rentals or unknown, with an unknown number of cars.
Commissioner Hoffman said he would want ARC review on the appropriateness of a
detached second unit to keep it in character with the surrounding neighborhood. He also
suggested elimination of the percentage increase limitation because there are already
standards in place concerning lot coverage. He said that the current ordinance allows
exceptions to size limit, so the 450 square foot limit is working.
Commissioner Senn said he agreed with Commr. Hoffman, except for the 450 square foot
limitation. He felt lot development standards apply to all sites, and different lots have
different situations. The 450 square foot limit does not give the flexibility needed.
Ron Whisenand suggested leaving the 450 square foot limit, but modify the required
findings to allow exceptions and make it very clear when an exception could be granted.
Commissioner Cross suggested that putting in a second unit over 450 square feet could
increase the density and quite possibly could change the character of the neighborhood.
He also suggested that one parking space is fine for a 450 square foot second unit, but
larger units should be required to have two spaces.
Commissioner Whittlesey reminded the Commission that the size of the second unit will
be limited by both the existing lot coverage allowances and the proposed parking
requirements. She suggested that the applicant be allowed to make a case that a
detached unit is necessary. She also wanted a sentence in the ordinance saying that
two-story units will only be allowed if there is a two-story primary unit.
Commissioner Hoffman moved, and Commissioner Senn seconded that the request be
continued to allow staff to come up with draft findings to allow detached and larger units
and to return to the Planning Commission at the earliest opportunity. The staff report
should address 1) modified findings for large units, 2) findings to allow detached units,
3) elimination of the 15% restriction, 4) modified parking; below a certain square footage,
one space — over a certain square footage, two spaces required, 5) provisions for
second story units, and 6) three-year review be maintained. Chairperson Williams
recommended that staff also consider Mr. Nordquist's document.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Hoffman, Senn, Whittlesey, D. Williams, Cross, G.
Williams, Karleskint, Senn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
i7A 0" a
draft
Planning Commiss Minutes
May 11, 1994
Page 9
Item 2. Zoning Regulations Text Amendment: Appl. TA 33-94; An
amendment to the Zoning Regulations relating to second
dwelling units; City-wide; Bert Dodge, Applicant.
Judith Lautner presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission recommend approval of changes to the second unit
regulations as modified by the Commission and staff.
Ron Whisenand, added that Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN)
some concerns with modifying the ordinance. RQN prefers it
unchanged. He also said that San Luis Drive Homeowners'
Association and the Old Town Group have been notified of the
proposed changes.
Commissioner Cross called attention to the additions he had made to
the Commission packet which were regulations from the City of
Pacifica and Modoc County, regarding second dwelling units. He
suggested that SLO's regulations should be modified to include some
language from the Pacifica regulations.
Commissioner Whittlesey confirmed that the Commission is only going
to amend the text, not look at the applicant's personal project
during this meeting.
Ron Whisenand explained that the applicant has a project in mind
that does not meet current requirements. He said the applicant is
applying for the amendment first, and then would come back with the
second dwelling unit application, if the amendments are approved by
the City Council.
Judy Lautner explained that "infeasible" would mean that the site
contained a significant obstacle which would make an attached
second unit impractical, such as a creek or the removal of a large
tree.
In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Judy Lautner
explained that non-conforming parking would have to be brought up
to current standards before any second unit could be allowed.
Chairperson Williams opened the public hearing.
Robert Fisher, 8925 Atascadero Avenue, applicant's representative,
stated that the exception route is acceptable to them, since it
would at least open up the ordinance so that they could request
size increases and the detached units. In this case the applicant
has an older one story home on a lot with a gentle up slope. The
main floor is almost 8' above grade at the front of the house,. so
he thought a detached second-story unit is appropriate at the site.
He was concerned about the restriction on upper-level units. He
1943
draft -
Planning Commissio. Ainutes
May 11, 1994
Page 10
said he was in agreement with everything else proposed, including
parking and the ARC review options. He said that he and the
applicant do not have any problems with the recommendations of
staff.
Bertha Dodge, applicant, explained that she is a 38 year resident,
and is also concerned about density. She thanked the Commission
for their consideration of her application, and invited the members
of the Commission to see the site. She also suggested that if the
Commission felt it necessary, she could get a neighborhood petition
signed in support of the project.
Bonnie Garritano, 1950 San Luis Drive, representing the San Luis
Drive Neighborhood Association, said that the changes to the Zoning
Regulations, as requested by the applicant and supported by staff,
could effectively create R-2 zones where the remaining R-1
neighborhoods exist, at a great loss to the character to the city.
She commended the efforts of RQN for their diligence in defending
the character and quality of the neighborhoods. She said that the
San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association supports the Commission
recommendation requiring exceptions for larger and detached units.
She said the Association supports requiring more parking, but they
do not believe that any second unit qualifies as "aesthetically
insignificant" . Even if the project is not visible from the
street, it still creates an impact on the neighborhood, so they
support as much review as possible. She also felt that second
units should continue to be subject to periodic review for strict
compliance with all the requirements.
Ron Whisenand indicated that though the representative of RQN was
not present, they did have concerns. He felt that RQN is opposed
to any changes to the current regulations. RQN seems to like the
direction the Commission is taking, but still feels strongly that
there should be no detached units allowed, or easing up of any
findings required for exceptions.
Commissioner Williams closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Cross suggested that the Commission look at the
Pacifica Regulations. He suggested that one of the concerns was
the impact on neighborhoods, especially with the larger units and
the number of persons that could potentially occupy them. He
explained that Pacifica has limited the occupancy of the second
unit to a maximum of two persons. They also require an annual
notarized statement reaffirming owner occupancy, limit the square
footage to 640, and allow construction over the garage. For
parking, they do not allow tandem at all, require two spaces for
the primary unit, plus one uncovered space for the second unit. He
also liked Pacifica's findings, one of which says the second unit
must be visually integrated and aesthetically compatible with the
main dwelling unit. He also felt .that rent structure should be
addressed to meet the intent of the second dwelling unit
regulations to provide low and moderate income housing. He felt
/ "q
draft
Planning Commiss:� Minutes
May 11, 1994
Page 11
that Pacifica addresses that issue very well. He noted that the
Modoc County regulations allow temporary family care dwellings,
which may be a way to allow a larger unit. He supported limiting
occupancy to two persons, having a maximum area of 640 square feet,
using the Pacifica findings, and including a rent structure.
Commissioner Williams asked if it were possible to have rent
control only applying to one type of property, if there isn't rent
control citywide.
Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney, expressed concern about
this issue, saying possibly some form of rent control could be
accomplished with findings, but the matter would need to be
continued until she could research it.
Commissioner Cross asked if the Pacifica findings could be added
without further review or continuance since these address the main
concerns.
Judy Lautner explained that some of Commr. Cross's suggested
additions to the regulations could be added without much problem.
She said that addition of other items would require that the
application be continued again for research and additional study.
She suggested that the questionable items be added to the next
round of zoning regulations amendments, which would allow time for
legal review and study.
Commr. Williams asked if the ARC has sufficient scope and depth to
address whether a second unit is aesthetically compatible with a
neighborhood?
Commr. Cross confirmed that these are the issues that the ARC deals
with, and that if there is any concern within the neighborhood,
that ARC can look at these findings, and specifically address and
rule on these issues.
Commr. Cross suggested that the Commission might want to consider
the impacts of second driveways, in conjunction with the location
of neighboring homes.
Commissioner Williams reminded the Commission that the purpose of
these amendments is to clean up the text of the current ordinance.
Ron Whisenand suggested that the Commission concentrate on the
issues that will be affected by the proposed ordinance changes, and
he did not see any link between the issues at hand and the driveway
issue.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if the proposed changes would still allow
the Commission and staff enough support to deny a detached unit
project.
Ron Whisenand responded that the findings as currently written are
draft
Planning Commissic Ainutes
May 11, 1994
Page 12
very wide open, but the Commission would be making that decision,
though they could ask for staff recommendations and factor in other
pertinent issues. He suggested that if the Commission is not
comfortable with denying detached units with the suggested
findings, perhaps additional findings or language should be
provided which makes it clear under what circumstances the
Commission would approve detached units.
Commr. Whittlesey said would like to see the detached unit the
exception rather than the rule. She suggested that exceptions be
granted only when an attached second unit is structurally
infeasible, when a physical barrier exists on the property which is
too great to overcome.
Commissioner Williams suggested clarifying the finding so the
applicant knows s detached unit will only be considered when very
great physical barriers are involved, and not a simple physical
barrier, where relocation might inconvenience the applicant.
Commr. Hoffman suggested wording to that effect.
Ron Whisenand suggested alternative wording.
Commissioners discussed using some of Pacifica's findings to
approve second units and to approve exceptions.
Commr. Williams asked legal counsel if the commission can limit the
number of occupants, and also asked about requiring a notarized
statement from owner-occupants.
Cindy Clemens suggested that she would need to examine recent
Federal Court rulings on limiting the number of occupants, and that
we currently require a recorded agreement, which serves a similar
purpose to the notarized statements.
Commr. Cross stated that he is not comfortable with indeterminate
size. He wanted to see a maximum size of 640 square feet, with
additional findings to allow larger units, with 800 square feet
being the absolute maximum. He again noted that the intent of
allowing second units was to provide low- and middle-income
housing, and the large units are not going to have low- or middle-
income rents.
Commr. Karleskint wanted more flexibility in size.
Commr. Hoffman felt that if a size limit is to be stated in the
regulation, it should be 450 square feet rather than a larger
number.
In answer to a question from Commr. Karleskint, Cindy Clemens said
that if this were the initial enactment of this ordinance, then it
draft
Planning Commissi Minutes
May 11, 1994
Page 13
may be appropriate to provide for legalization of existing illegal
units, but it may not be appropriate now, when the City has had
this ordinance for a long time. She suggested that such a
provision has a different purpose than the Commission is
considering.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if it were appropriate to require that a
second unit, if in violation, be dismantled.
Ron Whisenand said that was a concern RQN had with allowing
detached units. An attached unit could usually be converted to be
a part of the residence. With detached units, the concern was what
it could be turned into.
Commr. Whittlesey moved that the Commission recommend approval to
the Council of the amendments, . with the following modifications: 1)
A separate section is to be added, containing three findings for
approving second residential lots; 2) The second finding for
allowing detached units was changed; 3) The second finding to allow
exceptions to the size limit was changed; and 4) Four grammatical
or typographical errors were corrected.
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Wittlesey, Hoffman, Karleskint, D.
Williams, G. Williams,
NOES: Commr. Cross
ABSENT: Commissioner Senn
The motion passes.
/#47
f
j
� � i I.i��*� ZA .�1 /u'`-GC//L�ice• 1i��L�`�
' 1
. .. �� 1./c� tis .��1 N�2..CI����t/L6✓ =
.p
I r
RE CE IV Ek. ROBERT E. AND MARY E. KENNEDY
1.385 CAZADERO STREET
APR 2 61994 SAN LUIS OBISPO
CA. 93401
CRY OF SAN LUIS OSISPC
^ommu ITY DEvo nrn e•
April 26 , 1994
City Planning Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca . 93405
RE: OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL TO LIBERALIZE
REGULATIONS APPLYING TO 2ND DWELLING UNITS IN R-1 ZONES
My wife and I have been residents and property owners in the city
of San Luis Obispo since 1940 . We built our present home in the
Escuela Alta tract, an R-1 zone , in 1950 . Several years ago I
was one of several citizens who testified against a near-
neighbor ' s proposal to build a detached unit ostensibly to house
a relative . The landowner was appealing a planning commission
decision; the appeal was rejected by the city council . The lady
wrote me a hate letter and moved from the area. I cite this
example as one reason why the provision to eliminate periodic
use permit review unless reasonable complaints are received" is
unwise . Many good citizens who feel they should make a public
complaint will not do so for fear of becoming engaged in some
kind of controversy with a neighbor . Another example in our same
neighborhood involved the surreptitious building of a rental unit
over a double/or triple garage. The owners obviously rented the
unit, since it drew three or four cars regularly parked in front
of the house, to the dismay of the neighbors , all of whom
remained silent to avoid conflict with their heretofore friends .
The proposal , I understand, also advocates increasing the size of
such 2nd dwelling units from the present 450 to 800 square feet .
I 'm sure you are aware that there are many small rental units in
the city which are currently housing 3 or 4 students in
apartments with less than 800 square feet . A clever builder can
construct a very livable 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment with adequate
kitchen, living/dining area in 800 square feet . For an owner in
an R=l zone to propose building this size of detached apartment
for an elderly father and/or mother probably anticipates it will
make a fine rental unit in a few years . When so used there is no
provision for off-street parking, among other disadvantages .
If the present owner intends to honestly use the facility for
"guest quarters" it should be an addition to the existing house
with an appropriately connecting doorway. When a home in an R-1
zone is sold to a buyer who made no commitment as to how the
"detached unit" might be used, it would be a great temptation to
use the unit as a rental .
We hope the PlanningCommission will reject any proposal that
w ld weaken the present restrictions on the use of R-1 zones .
urs/
obertJE. and ry E.Jdfit-
C,
In our opinion, the our existing second residential unit
program has been accepted by the residents of R-1
neighborhoods. These units have been successfully integrated
into R-1 neighborhoods because of the compatibility
assurances which were designed into the present ordinance.
The ordinance requires that the second unit be attached
to the primary unit, that one unit be owner-occupied, that
adequate off-street parking be created, that architecture
review be required, and that periodic review occur. All of
these contribute to the assurance that second units will be
good neighbors, rather than sort of rentals which could
become neighborhood nuisances.
Neighborhood nuisances clearly degrade surrounding
property values and the quality of life which is associated
with R-1 neighborhoods.
We feel that this current proposal WEAKENS all of these
assurances.
The existing ordinance requires assurance that the
second units will be relatively quiet and good-neighbor
rentals, instead of noisy neighborhood nuisances.
This is hinged on the requirement that the property
owner would be LIVING in one of the attached units. This
means that the owner-landlord would be most directly and
immediately affected by noisy or nuisance behavior of the
rental unit occupants. This would therefor control behavior
which may impact the peace and quiet of the surrounding J
neighborhood.
Staff says, "Additional units mean additional people,
and maybe more noise, Noise has not been a concern with the
existing legal units, perhaps because the property owner
lives on the site and can monitor it" .
Staff is now proposing that completely detached second
units be allowed as opposed to rental units with are actually
part of a primary dwelling.
We contend that the following questions be answered '
before abandoning the built-in neighborhood compatibility
requirements of the present ordinance:
1. If the city allows completely detached and fully
self-contained second units to be built on R-1 lots
throughout the city and if some owner/landlords do NOT occupy
one of the units as required, how will the city enforce the
owner/occupant requirement which assures neighborhood
compatibility?
2. Will the city move against the detached second
units with demolition proceedings? Or will the city merely
change the ordinance to allow two rentals on one lot in R-1
neighborhoods?
3. If the city is hesitant to order demolitions of
these illegal detached second-unit rentals, what would be the
impact of the resulting two-unit rentals, with absentee
landlords, be on the neighbors?
4. How would this affect the property values of
adjacent single-family homes in the neighborhood?
S. If the owner-occupant requirement is violated, it
is easier to require minor changes to 450 square feet in a
single structure than to demolish a completely detached and
fully contained rental. Should the city create a situation
which it knows it can't enforce?
6. Staff states on page 3 that the owner/occupancy
requirement is what will keep applications from increasing
significantly. If this requirement is realistically
unenforceable, doesn' t it follow that applications, along
with all of the impacts, WILL increase significantly?
7. The staff report repeatedly reinforces the
presumption that this is what is commonly called "granny
housing" , meant to provide family housing for elderly
residents. The ordinance says that second units are
"intended to provide livable housing at less cost while
providing greater security, companionship and family support
for the occupants. The report repeatably speaks of "elderly
property owners" or of elderly parents or other family
members.
8. If the elderly are truly to be the primary
occupants of these granny units, and if the creation of many
of these granny units will impact traffic and air quality
significantly (as stated in the staff report) , the mitigation
of bicycle storage seems strange.
Is requiring a bicycle for each elderly person a logical
mitigation?
Given the rental history of R-1 neighborhoods, the
nature of San Luis Obispo as a college town, and the absence
of a requirement that this be elderly housing, it seem staff
understands that many of the occupants of the second units
rentals MIGHT be young people, not JUST the elderly.
9. The proposal to limit the number of detached second
units to an arbitrary number for each block, in order to
limit expected impacts of R-1 neighborhoods, seems
unworkable.
X57
Who gets a second use permit, and who is refused inV
order to limit the number of detached second units per
residential block?
Realistically, wouldn' t everyone who qualifies receive a
permit?
10. The seemingly arbitrary basis of expected impacts /
is insufficient. The calculations on page 3 for traffic
impacts are based on one detached second unit per block. Yet
there is no basis for expecting one unit per block, nor any
requirement for this situation to occur.
What will the impact be for many such units per block as
would be allowed under the proposal?
What would be the impact of increased population with
many units per block on the existing and proposed Land Use
Elements which call for one percent city residential growth?
11. Is there a limit to the number of persons who may
occupy the detached second unit?
With an unenforceable owner-occupancy requirement, this
clearly becomes more of a problem.
12. The city currently allows exceptions to the 450
square footage to be granted under request, after a public
hearing with opportunity for neighborhood input. This allows
larger second units to be permitted based in a specific
situation in a specific neighborhood, but permits denial in
situations that are inappropriate or where larger units would
have negative impacts on adjacent neighboring houses.
This process has ensured input from affected adjoining
R-1 neighbors and given the city flexibility based in that
input and specific situations.
Doesn't a blanket increase in the square footage
entitlement, as opposed to permitted increases based on
public input in specific situations, decrease the city' s
ability to ensure neighborhood compatibility?
In closing, unlike some other cities, San Luis Obispo
has allowed second residential units in R-1 neighborhoods .
The present ordinance tries to ensure that second units do
not become neighborhood nuisances and degrade adjacent
property values by requiring that second units be attached to
their primary units, that one unit be owner occupied, that
adequate off-street parking be created, and that periodic
review be mandatory.
/ 4L
These present requirements have succeeded in
establishing a second unit program which HAS BEEN accepted by
the residents of R-1 neighborhoods, which HAVE integrated
second units into R-1 neighborhoods, and which HAVE preserved
the property values and quality of life of the adjacent
residents .
The proposal to drop t4ese successful regulations of the
present ordinance should be c4ref4lly Te-exar4ned.
MEET1 AGENDA
DATE ' /- ITEM #
Jl 1994 RQNUN
RESIDENTS FOR QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS WPWNCIL CDD DIR
CITY CLERK P O Box 12603 lgryAO ❑ FIN DIR
!.UIC 013*p j.G' San Luis Obispo CA 93406 ,�/ACAO C3FIRE CHIEF
�TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
June 21, 1994 CLERKIMG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGWr TEAM p REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ LITIL DIR
To: Madam Mayor and Council Members ❑ PERS DIR
City of San Luis Obispo, CA z. -
Subject: Proposed amendments to second residential unit
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
detached, larger units in some cases, change the
parking requirement, and make other minor changes.
Because we feel that this proposal has the potential to
substantially impact the character of established neighbor-
hoods, the RQN Directors appreciate the opportunity which the
Planning Department has afforded neighborhood groups to pro-
vide input into this issue.
The Board of Directors of the Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods (RQN) opposes the proposed modifications of the
City Zoning Regulations regarding expanding the conditions
for construction of secondary units in R-1 and R-2 zones.
We believe that the City' s current second residential
regulations are clear, enforceable, and are working well. It
is also our understanding that the current regulations meet
State requirements, and that there is no State or Federal
mandate to expand it.
We believe that these proposed changes to the City's cur-
rent regulations will create new situations in which essen-
tial conditions are likely unenforceable, and will open up
potential for abuses that will lead to further frustrations
and degradation of neighborhoods.
This proposal is troubling to many of our neighborhood
groups because of these concerns:
1. The City already has several relatively high density
neighborhoods when compared to the larger-lot character of
neighborhoods in the surrounding communities in. the north and
south county. This proposal will serve to further increase
densities in our already dense neighborhoods.
Is it a sound policy to further increase densities in al-
ready dense neighborhoods?
2. A major reason that the current regulations is effec-
tive is because there is an enforceable requirement that one
of the two units must be owner-occupied. This "builds in" a
control because the landlord-owner will thereby be most af-
fected by any nuisance behavior of second-unit tenants,
therefore controlling it before neighbors are affected.
The enforcement of the owner-occupancy requirement
states: if the owner occupancy is not possible, then the use
will terminate, and the structure will be returned to its
original condition. An attached unit is essentially an
addition to the house which can then revert back to being a
normal part of the house.
But we do not think this is feasible with detached units.
Is the City willing to initiate demolition proceedings if the
owner occupancy requirement is violated? If not, then it
seems the City is creating an unenforceable regulation.
3. Will there be an occupancy limit of one or two per-
sons in these small second units?
If not, what will the impact of "packing" the second unit
with independent tenants be on the peace and quiet of the
surrounding single family neighborhood?
4. Nuisance disturbances and parking problems are already
much too common and difficult to control in the City' s neigh-
borhoods. Why risk the potential for more of the same?
S. Staff cites parking requirements as preventing detri-
mental impacts on neighborhoods and limiting the number of
units permitted. Staff also cites the City of Santa Cruz as
an example.
Is Staff aware that Santa Cruz is now proposing that sec-
ond unit parking be allowed in the driveway and the side yard
setback?
What assurances are there that the parking requirements
now proposed in these regulations as "safeguards" will not be
similarly dropped at a later date?
6. Owner-occupancies of single family residences has de-
clined dramatically over the last few decades in the City.
Many residents feel that our established single-family neigh-
borhoods are becoming increasingly fragile.
The recent support by the City Council of "Neighborhood
Wellness" programs is to be commended as a-step in addressing
neighborhood concerns of creeping fragility.
But would it make sense for the City to simultaneously
weaken the second unit protections which have worked well to
protect single family neighborhoods?
P.S.
We are opposed to this proposal. But if the Council
adopts it, we would recommend these changes as indicated:
17.21.055 FINDINGS.
To grant a use permit for a second residential unit, the
Director or Planning Commission, or on appeal, the City Coun-
cil, must make the following findings:
1. The unit is visually integrated and in character with
the main dwelling, adjoining properties, and the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. The location and orientation of the second unit will
not materially reduce the privacy, peace, and quiet otherwise
enjoyed by residents of adjoining properties.
3. (Remains as proposed. )