HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2003, PH3 - AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATING THE SECONDARY UNIT ORDINANCE IN RESPONSE C C
council MtwgDat.
y-tS-d3
acEnaa Report `�N��. 3
CITY OF SAN LU IS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirectV,
Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner w
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
UPDATING THE SECONDARY UNIT ORDINANCE IN RESPONSE
TO AB 1866(TA 194-02).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an Ordinance(attachment 4) amending
Chapter 17.21 of the Municipal Code relating to secondary dwelling units.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
As a result of Assembly Bill 1866, the California Government Code has been amended to
encourage the production of secondary dwelling units to help alleviate the demand for housing in
the state. A "secondary dwelling unit" is defined as a residential dwelling unit that provides
complete independent living facilities on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is
situated. The new bill, effective July 1, 2003 will change the way local governments review and
approve secondary dwelling units. A legislative draft of Government Code Section 65852.2 has
been provided as Attachment 1. In summary, the significant changes include the requirement of
local governments to allow secondary units ministerially, without a Use Permit. In response to
AB 1866 the City's ordinance regulating secondary dwelling units, through a Use Permit process
must be updated.
The Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to Chapter 17.21 of the Zoning Code
on March 12, 2003 (see Attachment 2; Planning Commission staff report). In addition to
recognizing that a Use Permit can no longer be required, the Commissioners concluded that the
current code is too prohibitive to the production of secondary dwelling units (sdu's). The
Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend significant amendments to chapter 17.21 to the
City Council (refer to Attachment 3, Resolution 5362-03).
Evaluation
A brief history and description of recent Government Code changes is included in the attached
Planning Commission Staff report from March 12, 2003 (Attachment 2). The analysis presented
to the Planning Commission was organized in 4 separate categories in order to classify the
necessity of the proposed amendments. These groups are as follows:
1. Changes that will need to be made prior to July 1, 2003 in order to meet Government
Code amendments(removal of Use Permit requirement).
2. Changes that are recommended due to existing inconsistencies found in our code.
Council Agenda Report
TA 194-02 (Secondary Dwelling Units)
Page 2
3. Changes that should be made in order to enhance property development standards and
ensure neighborhood compatibility following removal of Use Permit Requirement.
4. Related policy issues that could be explored during the Housing Element Update process
involving additional relaxation of standards.
The legislative draft of Chapter 17.21 reviewed by the Planning Commission contained text
changes that responded to items 1 through 3 (see Attachment 2). Item 4 was referred to the
Housing Element Update Task Force for further analysis, with some components to return to a
future Planning Commission hearing for further discussion.
Analysis of proposed amendments
As stated above, the primary change enacted by AB 1866 eliminates discretionary review for the
approval of an sdu that complies with the City's adopted standards. Other than removal of the
Use Permit requirement, staff identified two additional areas where our code is inconsistent with
the current state law regulating sdu's:
1. The City's ordinance contains parking restrictions and standards that are more restrictive
than the Government Code may allow. The City's ordinance requires 2 parking spaces for
a 450 square foot secondary dwelling unit in the R-1 district while the government code
clearly states: "Parking requirements for second units shall not
exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom. " Our
ordinance should clearly describe the number of required parking spaces, consistent with
the government code.
2. The Government Code describes that sdu's are allowed to be attached or detached while
the City's ordinance requires these units to be attached. The Government Code reads:
" "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential
dwelling unit which provides complete independent living
facilities for one or more persons . " Our ordinance should be crafted
to allow detached secondary dwelling units.
Without the Use Permit process governing the approval of sdu's, the City would need to rely
solely upon adequate performance standards to facilitate the review process and ensure
neighborhood compatibility. As allowed by the Government Code, staff proposed several
amendments to. the City's ordinance that included the following enhanced performance
standards:
a) Standards to ensure neighborhood compatibility
b) Private open space standards
c) Maximum height and setback allowances
d) General design criteria consistent with the Community Design Guidelines.
After extensive discussion and public testimony the Commission eliminated several of these
performance standards from staff's proposed draft because they felt they created design obstacles
that would limit the production of additional housing opportunities. In addition, the Commission
made a few changes to our existing regulations that they felt further limited the production of
sdu's. These changes included:
1. Removal of owner occupancy clause. Our current ordinance requires the sdu or the
a -a
Council Agenda Report
TA 194-02 (Secondary Dwelling Units)
Page 3
primary unit to remain occupied by the property owner.
2. Removal of requirement for architectural review.
It was Planning Commission's consensus that an overly restrictive ordinance has been the cause
for only 14 secondary dwelling units being approved and legally constructed within the City over
the past 20 years..
Environmental Review
The adoption of an ordinance regarding second units is exempt from CEQA. Section 154282 of
CEQA lists qualified statutory exemptions. Section 154282 (i) specifically addresses the
exemption: "The adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multi-
family residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and
65852.2 of the Government Code"
General Plan Consistency
The Planning Commission found that the proposed amendments are consistent with the General
Plan. The current General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element support the production
of housing that is affordable to a variety of income groups, especially when it can be incorporated
into existing neighborhoods. The Planning Commission determined that encouraging secondary
dwelling units that are well designed and compatible with the neighborhood is an acceptable way
to actively seek additional units on infill sites.
General Plan Land Use Element:
Community Goal # 18:
"San Luis Obispo Should"- "Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to
residents with very low, low and moderate incomes, within existing neighborhoods and within
expansion areas.
Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12 Residential Project Objectives:
"Residential projects should provide:
A. Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project
B. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and
oriented to receive light and sunshine
C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces
comfortable with minimum mechanical support
D. Pleasant views from and toward the project
E. Security and safety
F. Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets
G. Adequate parking and storage space
H. Noise and visual seperation...
I. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction..."
Land Use Element 2.14 Neighborhood Compatibility:
"The City will consider new regulations,for low density and medium density Residential areas,
3-3
Council Agenda Report )
TA 194-02 (Secondary Dwelling Units)
Page 4
to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in
existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities allowing easy
conversion to illegal second dwellings."
General Plan Housing Element:
Mixed Housing Variety and Tenure Goal 1.25.1: "The City will encourage the integration of
appropriately scaled special user housing into developments or neighborhoods of conventional
housing."
Special Housing Needs Goal 1.28.1: The City will encourage housing that meets the special
needs of families with children, single parents, disabled persons, those desiring congregate or
co-housing lifestyles, the elderly, students, and the homeless.
Housing Element Policy 1.27.1 (Neighborhood Quality)
"Within established neighborhoods, new residential development must be of a character, size,
density, and quality of life for existing and future residents."
Conclusion
Amendments to the existing zoning text governing secondary dwelling units must be done in
order to meet the changing Government Code. Considering the spirit of the changes enacted by
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and the local housing
demands that the City is currently facing, changes that may facilitate secondary dwelling units are
appropriate at this time. These changes will help to remove obstacles that inhibited the feasible
development of secondary dwelling units.
The Government Code does allow cities to adopt an ordinance and findings to prohibit secondary
dwelling units altogether. However, in order to prohibit secondary units the City must adopt.
findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region.
Additionally the City must adopt findings that specific adverse impacts on public health, safety,
and welfare would result from allowing secondary units within single family and multifamily-
zoned areas. Because of the difficulty in adopting and justifying such findings, staff does not
believe this alternative is an option in San Luis Obispo.
CONCURRENCES
Neighborhood groups, such as Residents For Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) have reviewed the
proposed amendments and agree that amendments are necessary to comply with the Government
Code. RQN, however, is concerned that the removal of performance standards, elimination of an
owner-occupancy requirement, and elimination of the City's ability to perform architectural
review could have significant adverse impacts to our existing residential neighborhoods,
inconsistent with some of the above referenced housing/neighborhood General Plan policies.
Council Agenda,Report
TA 194-02 (Secondary Dwelling Units)
Page 5
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Revise the Draft Ordinance to include additional performance standards, owner
occupancy or other items as allowed by the Government Code.
2. Refer the item back to staff for additional amendments and research.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Legislative draft, Government Code Section 65852.2
Attachment 2: Planning Commission.staff report with staff's recommended amendments
Attachment 3: Resolution 5362-03, adopted by Planning Commission 3-12-03
Attachment 4: Planning Commission meeting minutes 3-12-03
Attachment 5: Draft Ordinance amending Chapter 17.21 as recommended by the PC
G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAMPdunsmore\Text Amendments\2nd units AB 1866\TA-ER 194-02 CC report.doc
3-�
Attachment 1
Government Code Section 65852.150 - 65852.2
Legislative Draft (AB 1866) : Second Units
65852.150 Legislative findings; second units
The Legislature finds and declares that second units
are a valuable form of housing in California. Second units
provide housing for family members, students, the elderly,
in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at
below market prices within existing neighborhoods .
Homeowners who create second units benefit from added
income, and an increased sense of security.
It is the intent of the Legislature that any second-
unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect
of providing for the creation of second units and that
provisions in these ordinances relating to matters
including unit size, parking, fees and other requirements,
are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to
unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create
second units in zones in which they are authorized by local
ordinance .
65852.2 . Provisions for second unit ordinances/findings
(A)
(1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the
creation of second units in single-family and multifamily
residential zones . The ordinance may do any of the
following:
{}} a) May Designate areas within the jurisdiction
of the local agency where second units may be
permitted. The designation of areas may be based on
criteria, which may include, but are not limited to,
the adequacy of water and sewer services and the
impact of second units on traffic flow.
{g} b) Maw Impose standards on second units . hi eh
that include, but are not limited to, parking, height,
setback, lot coverage, architectural review, aid
maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent
adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in
the California Register of Historic Places.
43+ c) May Provide that second units do not exceed
the allowable density for the lot upon which the
second unit is located, and that second units are a
residential use that is consistent with the existing
general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
3-U
Attachment 1
( 4) mai establish aPLaeeess €eLc the issldanee e€ a
eend4tienal ase—perit fer seeenel units .
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the
application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to
limit residential growth.
(3) When a local agency receives its first application on
or after July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this
subdivision, the application shall be considered
ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing,
notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local
ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special
use permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to
require a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance
for the creation of second units. A local agency may
charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it .incurs as a
result of amendments to this paragraph enacted during the
2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature, including the
costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides
for the creation of second units.
(B) (1) When a local agency which has not adopted an
ordinance governing second units in accordance with
subdivision (a) or (c) receives its first application on or
after July 1, 1983 , for a eenditieeai use permit pursuant
to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the
application and approve or disapprove the application
ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to this
subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance
with subdivision (a) or (c) within 120 days after receiving
the application. Notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906,
every local agency shall grant a variance or special use
permit er a eenditienal used` for the creation of a
second unit if the second unit complies with all of the
following:
(a) The unit is not intended for sale and may be
rented.
(b) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily
use.
(c) The lot contains an existing single-family
dwelling.
(d) The second unit is either attached to the
existing dwelling and located within the living area
of the existing dwelling or detached from the
3- �
� Attachment 1
existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the
existing dwelling.
(e) The increased floor area of an attached second
unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing
living area.
(f) The total area of floor space for a detached
second unit shall not exceed 1, 200 square feet .
(g) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot
coverage, architectural review, site plan review,
fees, charges, and other zoning requirements
generally applicable to residential construction in
the zone in which the property is located.
(h) Local building code requirements which apply to
detached dwellings, as appropriate.
(i)Approval by the local health officer where a
private sewage disposal system is being used, if
required.
(2) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall
be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use
permit under this subdivision.
(3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards
that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second
units on lots zoned for residential use which contain an
existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards,
other than those provided in this subdivision or
subdivision (a) , shall be utilized or imposed, except that
a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued
pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant.
(4) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances
or any changes in the general plan shall be required to
implement this subdivision. Any local agency may amend its
zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the
policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the
creation of second units if these provisions are consistent
with the limitations of this subdivision.
(5) A second unit which conforms to the requirements of
this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the
allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and
shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent
with the existing general plan and zoning designations for
the lot. The second units shall not be considered in the
application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to
limit residential growth.
(C) No local agency shall adopt an ordinance which
totally precludes second units within single-family or
3,-
Attachment 1
multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains
findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing
opportunities of the region and further contains findings
that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety,
and welfare that would result from allowing second units
within single-family and multifamily zoned. areas justify
adopting the ordinance.
(D) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size
requirements for both attached and detached second units.
No minimum or maximum size for a second unit, or size based
upon a percentage of the existing dwelling, shall be
established by ordinance for either attached or detached
dwellings which does not permit at least an efficiency unit
to be constructed in compliance with local development
standards .
(8) Parking requirements for second units shall not
exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom.
Additional parking may be required provided that a finding
is made that the additional parking requirements are
directly related to the use of the second unit and are
consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable
to existing dwellings . Off-street parking shall be
permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the
local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific
findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem
parking is not feasible based upon specific site or
regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions,
or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the
jurisdiction.
(F) Fees charged for the construction of second units
shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 66000) .
(G) This section does not limit the authority of local
agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the
creation of second units .
(H) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances
adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the
Department of Housing and Community Development within 60
days after adoption.
(I) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) "Living area, " means the interior habitable area
of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but
does not include a garage or any accessory structure.
(2) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and
county, whether general law or chartered.
3--a
Attachment 1
(3 ) For purposes of this section, "neighborhood" has
the same meaning as set forth in Section 65589 . 5 .
(4) "Second unit" means 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. A
second unit also includes the following:
(A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958 . 1
of Health and Safety Code.
(B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007
of the Health and Safety Code.
(j ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede
or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of
the California Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with
Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code) , except that
the local government shall not be required to hold public
hearings for coastal development permit applications for
second units.
ID
Attachment 2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1
BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522 MEETING DATE: March 12, 2003
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Revie<F
FILE NUMBER: TA 194-02
PROJECT ADDRESS: City Wide
SUBJECT: Review of amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 17.21 of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to secondary dwelling units.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
A. Review proposed amendments to Chapter 17.21 of the Zoning Code and adopt a
resolution making a recommendation to the City Council to approve the revisions
consistent with the recently revised Government Code section 65852.2.
B. Offer direction to the Housing Element Update Task Force to review additional changes
to Chapter 17.21 for a future recommendation to the Planning Commission as part of
their report on the Housing Element update process.
BACKGROUND
Situation
As a result of Assembly Bill 1866, the Government Code has been amended to encourage the
production of secondary dwelling units as an alternative housing supply. The new bill, effective
July 1, 2003 changes the way local governments will review and approve secondary dwelling
units. In summary, the significant changes include the requirement of local governments to allow
secondary units ministerially, without a Use Permit. Additionally, the new bill provides for cities
to create standards that will prevent adverse impacts to historic resources. A legislative draft of
Government Code Section 65852.2 has been provided as attachment 1. Proposed amendments to
the Zoning Text are necessary in order to comply with government code changes and update our
standards to reflect the latest innovative development standards to ensure continued
neighborhood compatibility.
The review of Chapter 17.21 of the Zoning Ordinance will examine the following potential
amendment areas:
1. Changes that will need to be made prior to July 1, 2003 in order to comply with
Government Code amendments.
2. Changes that are recommended due to existing inconsistencies found in our code.
3. Changes that should be made in order to enhance property development standards and
ensure neighborhood compatibility following removal of Use Permit Requirement.
3- l (
Attachment 2
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 2
4. Other changes that should be explored with the Housing Element Update for
consideration of possible relaxation of the standards.
History
In 1982, the State of California adopted legislation which modified the Government Code to
require all cities and counties to adopt either their own ordinances or a state model ordinance to
allow secondary residential units in all residential zones. The legislation allowed property
owners to build secondary units in single and multi family residential zones, but authorized local
governments to impose reasonable standards on their construction including the processing of
land use permits. Additionally cities were allowed to prohibit second units altogether with the
adoption of certain findings. These findings must specify that allowing secondary units "may
limit housing opportunities of the region" and that"specific adverse impacts on the public health,
safety, and welfare" would result. Very few cities successfully prohibit secondary units since it
would be very difficult to make legally defensible findings of this nature. Some housing
advocates claim that extensive permitting requirements imposed by local jurisdictions, including
hearings and sometimes onerous conditions of approval have made the development of secondary
units prohibitively expensive. In response to this, lawmakers have been recently successful in
amending the Government Code thereby eliminating some of the City's discretionary review
abilities in approving secondary units.
According to the new law, local jurisdictions must now consider all applications for secondary
units filed on or after July 1, 2003 ministerially, without discretionary review and a hearing.
Cities may, however, create a detailed set of property development standards including-but not
limited to- parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size, and
standards to prevent adverse, impacts to historic preservation sites. If a secondary unit proposal
meets the criteria, the local agency must approve the application without attaching additional
conditions. If a City does not have an ordinance governing the development standards for
secondary units, the Government Code supercedes city-zoning law and secondary units can be
established in accordance with Government Code, and must be approved ministerially. The
purpose of City-enacted Zoning Text amendments is to ensure that our regulations are consistent
with the Government Code and ensure that we have contemporary property development
standards that will ensure neighborhood compatibility without overly discouraging the legal
development of secondary dwelling units on appropriate sites.
The secondary dwelling units that are referred to in the state code are dwelling units that would
be allowed regardless of a residential site's allowed density standards. Secondary dwelling units
should not be confused with additional dwelling units that may be allowed in any residential
district, including the R-1 district, by allowed density standards, which in San Luis Obispo relate
to the overall area of the site. For example, a 13,000 square foot lot in the R-1 district contains
the density to allow two dwelling units with complete independent living facilities. It should be
noted that additional dwelling units on the same lot in the R-1 district currently require an
3La
u Attachment 2
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 3
Administrative Use Permit, but are not subject to the secondary dwelling unit requirements. The
process to allow multiple dwelling units on large lots in the R-1 district that contain adequate
density will remain unchanged with the City's incorporated changes as required by AB 1866.
EVALUATION
1. Changes that will need to be made prior to July 1, 2003 in order to meet.Government
Code amendments.
The primary change enacted by AB 1866 eliminates the ability of the City to require a Use Permit
for the approval of a secondary dwelling unit. Our current secondary dwelling unit ordinance is
based on the Use Permit process and associated requirements. Without the Use Permit process
governing the approval of secondary units, the City will need to rely solely upon adequate
development standards and design guidelines to facilitate the review and permit process. The
City will continue to have the opportunity to require an application for architectural review. An
application for architectural review will allow the City to apply design criteria, evaluate
neighborhood compatibility, assess historic resource impacts and impose property development
standards.
The minimum changes will need to be implemented to Sections 17.21.030 and 17.21.050 of the
Municipal Code as shown in corresponding sections in legislative draft form below.
17.21.010 Purpose.
A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.150) and
(2), which allows the city to seadifiienally-p®rx perform architectural review and
apply specific development standards to secondary dwelling units in residential
zones.
17.21.30 General requirements.
B. Areas Where Secondary Dwelling Units Are Allowed. Upon approval of an
administEative use peRRit and meeting edwE the requirements of this section,
secondary dwelling units may be established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3,
and R-4.
17.21.050 Procedure requirements.
Prior to filing building plans with the city building division, the following shall be met.
A. PeEwAt Requirement. The applieant shall apply feF and obtain an adfr&i L
defined by zopAng regtdations-.
A.--B Architectural Review Required. All requests shall receive architectural review in
3- 13
Attachment 2
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 4
accordance with the adopted architectural review commission ordinance and Community
Design guidelines. The director shall determine, upon receiving complete application, whether
the project is declared minor or incidental. In the event the director determines that the project is
not minor or incidental, it shall be forwarded to the architectural review commission for review.
All new development projects within Historic Districts or within properties that contain
designated historic structures shall be referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee to be
reviewed for consistency with Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic
property.
C. Application Contents. All proposed secondary dwelling unit requests shall be by formal
application for architectural review.
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 and community development director, agreeing that
the property will be owner-occupied. Upon approval of
architectural review and a building permit, this agreement shall be recorded in the office of the
county recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property of the use and
owner occupancy restrictions affecting the property. 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 secondary dwelling units and establishing the use
pursuant to this section shall also agree to reimburse the city for costs of all necessary
enforcement actions.
E. Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be as provided by chapter 2.48.080
(Appeals-Architectural Review)
17.21.060 Violations.
A. PeFiedie Review. Use pefmits shall be s*eet to review after-the first year- and eaeh t
years thereafter-.
Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for
aeee d:.._. ..ith Chapter- 1:7.72. code enforcement action.
2. Changes that are recommended due to existing inconsistencies found in our code.
It is clear that amendments must be made to the SLO Municipal Code in order to comply with
recent Government Code revisions. Our existing code, however, contains other components that
currently may not be consistent with the existing or revised Government Code. Specifically, the
SLO Municipal Code contains parking restrictions and defining characteristics (attached vs.
detached) that are more restrictive than the Government Code may allow.
The current Govt. Code section 65852.2 (I) (4) clearly defines second units as attached or detached
units. The government code reads:
O Attachment 2
��J
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 5
"(4) "Second unit" means 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."
This section of the Government Code remains unchanged with AB 1866. SLO Municipal Code
Chapter 17.21.030(G)currently reads:
"A secondary dwelling unit shall be attached to or located within the living area of the primary
unit on the lot"
The SLO Municipal code should be amended consistent with the Government Code, allowing
attached or detached secondary dwelling units. Given that existing property development standards
such as setbacks, height and parking have been established to address overlook, and assure aesthetic
compatibility with the neighborhood, allowing attached or detached secondary units is not likely to
alter the potential for neighborhood compatibility impacts.
Section 65852.2 (E) of the Govt. Code currently states that parking requirements for second units
shall not exceed 1 per unit unless other standards are consistent with neighborhood standards
applicable to other dwellings. The maximum size of a second unit under the SLO Municipal Code
is 450 s.f., consistent with our size limits for a studio apartment. Studio apartments currently
require no more than 1 parking space. However our requirements for the R-1 district state that each
unit, regardless of size, must have 2 parking spaces. Therefore, it has been determined that
secondary dwelling units in the R-1 district require 2 parking spaces in addition to 2 spaces already
required for the main residence.
The revised ordinance should clarify the number of required parking spaces, consistent with the
Govt. Code. Given its small size and fact that only a single person or couple could reasonably
occupy it, 1 parking space for a 450 square foot secondary dwelling unit is appropriate. This would
result in a typical R-1 property with a secondary dwelling unit to have a total of 3 parking spaces,
instead of 4 as currently required. Most properties cannot accommodate 4 legal parking spaces,
without compromising significant yard space or encroaching into setbacks, resulting in vast
expanses of concrete.
The following is a legislative draft containing only those sections of Chapter 17.21 affected by
recommended amendments as discussed above.
17.21.020 Definitions.
F. "Secondary dwelling 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.
Attachment 2
0 0
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 6
17.21.040 Performance standards.
A. Design Standards. Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable zoning
regulations such as height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc., except for density
requirements as defined by zoning regulations.
1. Secondary dwelling 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. Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions
and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
4. Secondary dwelling units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible
with the primary unit.
5. Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall
require 1 parking space,regardless of zoning district.
3. Changes that should be made in order to enhance property development standards and
ensure neighborhood compatibility following removal of Use Permit Requirement.
Secondary dwelling units should continue to be subject to architectural review in order to ensure
neighborhood compatibility. By amending the property development standards to clarify the
acceptable treatment of secondary dwelling units, the review process can be consistent and
efficient. Secondary units should comply with San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines,
Chapter 5.3- Infill Development. Standards should dictate placement of the secondary unit on
the lot to preclude overlook, preserve the street appearance of the primary residence and protect
solar access. Secondary units constructed above garages should be stepped back to reduce
potential overlook and interference with solar access. Attention should be given to exterior
finishes, window treatment and roofing to ensure compatibility with the existing residence and
neighborhood. Landscape requirements should be developed to ensure screening of parking
areas, and buffering of property lines adjacent to new construction.
Additionally, the general requirements (section 17.21.030) should be analyzed for potential
clarification. Based on comments from neighborhood groups and analysis of regulations that
have recently been adopted in other communities, staff has prepared amendments to section
17.21.030. These amendments clarify non-conforming properties, ownership of the property, and
a clear definition of the size limitations of the units. As proposed, the new text recommends
prohibiting secondary dwelling units on non-conforming lots. In residential districts, non-
conforming lots are lots that are less than 6,000 square feet in total area. Restricting secondary
dwellings on smaller non-conforming lots may reduce the potential for overlook and loss of solar
access. Eliminating the possibility of allowing secondary dwelling units on non-conforming lots,
3� f[�
Attachment 2
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 7
however, may greatly reduce the number of potential secondary dwelling sites. The Commission
may instead consider a use permit requirement for the establishment of secondary dwelling units
on non-conforming lots rather than prohibiting them on these lots altogether.
A legislative draft of proposed amendments to the existing general requirements and
performance standards in response to item 3 above is shown below:
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 Secondary Dwelling Units Are Allowed. Upon appr-eval of at*
administfative use pemik and open meeting ethef the requirements of this section,
secondary dwelling units may be established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3,
and R-4.
C. Areas Prohibited. Secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit be allowed,
where in the opinion of the director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by
Chapter 2.44 of this code. Secondary dwelling units shall not be allowed on non-
conforming lots.
D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or secondary dwelling unit must be owner-
occupied as an owner's primary residence.
E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a
secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit has been
established.
F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where a
secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit shall ma-v be attached,of detached to
or located within the living area of the primary unit on the lot.
H. Size of Secondary Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area of the secondary dwelling unit
shall not exceed four hundred fifty square feet and shall meet the dermition of a
studio apartment as defined by Section 17.04.430. The planning commission may
authorize exception to this standard by use permit upon finding that:
1. The purpose of this 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 an
historic or architecturally significant building.
0 u Attachment 2
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 8
I. Secondary dwelling units are limited to 1 unit per qualifying property
17.21.040 Performance standards.
A. Design Standards. Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable zoning
regulations such as height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc., except for density
requirements as defined by zoning regulations. Secondary dwelling units shall be subject to
architectural review and shall be approved only when found consistent with the San Luis
Obispo Community Design Guidelines.
1. Secondary dwelling 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. Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions
and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
4. Secondary dwelling units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible
with the primary unit. The new structure shall incorporate the traditional
architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including
window and door spacing,exterior materials, and roof pitch and style.
5. The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential
structures. Unless adequatesetbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units
that result in two-story construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow
for solar access and reduced overlook.
6. Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the
existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street
appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. Exceptions to yard
requirements shall be discouraged and shall be subject to Use Permit review.
7. Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must
be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square
feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Private open
space provided at ground level. must have a.minimum dimension in every
direction of at least 10 feet or 6 feet for spaces above ground level on an elevated
deck or balcony.
8. Significant alterations to landform (grading in excess of 300 cubic yards) or
removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged.for the
placement of a secondary dwelling unit.
9. A landscape plan shall be required :for new secondary- dwelling units. A
minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening srubs shall separate
parking areas from adiacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be
required for areas between secondary unit and adiacent properties.
10. Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall
3- i�'
Attachment 2
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 9
require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district.
11.Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new
construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural
Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for
treatment of a historic property.
4. Other changes that could be explored with the Housing Element Update for consideration
of possible relaxation of the standards.
The Housing Element Update will require tools to encourage the development of new housing,
especially affordable rental units and infill development. Secondary dwelling units are a feasible
alternative that will assist the production of housing units without significant impacts to existing
residential neighborhoods, infrastructure or utilities. The Housing Element may develop policies
that can be applied to the creation of secondary dwelling units. The Housing Element will offer
sufficient background information such as current demographics, housing needs and neighborhood
characteristics that are important tools in determining how and where the production of secondary
dwelling units can be accommodated within the City. With this information, the City can create
incentives to allow secondary dwelling units in appropriate circumstances.
The following suggestions are items that should be forwarded to the Housing Element Update Task
Force for consideration.
1. Considering larger secondary dwelling units, above the current size limit of 450 square feet.
2. Consideration of not requiring a parking space• for a secondary dwelling unit, instead
requiring a covenant that allows the only occupants who do not own or utilize a motor
vehicle.
3. Since many infill properties contain constraints due to property dimensions and required
setbacks, alternative-parking arrangements should be encouraged. Alternative parking
arrangements, such as tandem parking, could allow additional yard space and ample
setbacks to be retained while accommodating required parking.
4. Allowing secondary dwelling units on non-conforming lots if findings can be made that all
development on the property will not exceed maximum lot coverage standards for the
applicable zoning district and the secondary dwelling unit can be accommodated without
yard exceptions or overlook potential.
5. Consideration of secondary dwelling units on properties that contain single family dwellings
outside of the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts. Many properties in the O, C-S, C-R and C-T
zones currently contain individual single-family residences that might be suitable for
consideration of a secondary dwelling unit, although the current density standards do not
allow it.
6. Secondary dwelling units could be deed restricted as affordable dwelling units. The main
goal of the Government Code is to create a supply of affordable rental units. The City
Attachment 2
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 10
should consider requiring all secondary dwelling units to be deed restricted as affordable
dwelling units.
General Plan Consistency
The current General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element support the production of
housing that is affordable to a variety of income groups, especially when it can be incorporated
into existing neighborhoods. Encouraging secondary dwelling units that are well designed, on
properties that are owner occupied is an acceptable way to actively seek additional units on infill
sites.
General Plan Land Use Element Community Goal# 18:
"San Luis Obispo Should`- "Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to
residents with very low, low and moderate incomes, within existing neighborhoods and within
expansion areas."
General Plan Housing Element Policies
Mixed Housing Variety and Tenure Goal 1.25.1: "The City will encourage the integration of
appropriately scaled special user housing into developments or neighborhoods of conventional
housing."
Special Housing Needs Goal 1.28.1 : The City will encourage housing that meets the special
needs of families with children, single parents, disabled persons, those desiring congregate or
co-housing lifestyles, the elderly, students, and the homeless.
Environmental Review
The adoption of an ordinance regarding second units is exempt from CEQA. Section 154282 of
CEQA lists qualified statutory exemptions. Section 154282 (i) specifically addresses the
exemption: "The adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multi-
family residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and
65852.2 of the Government Code"
Neighborhood Groups
Staff has reviewed the draft ordinance amendments with "Residents for Quality Neighborhoods"
(RQN) in order to gain feedback and assist with the direction of the proposed amendments. As
proposed, the text amendments contain useful ideas that were derived from RQN
recommendations.
Conclusion
Since implementation of the government code that allowed cities to regulate secondary dwelling
Attachment 2
TA 194-02 (Citywide)
Page 11
units in 1983, the city has processed approximately 22 applications for secondary dwelling units.
Of those 22 applications 3 were denied, 3 were withdrawn and 2 others were never constructed.
That leaves approximately 14 secondary dwelling units that were successfully, legally
constructed within the city within a 20-year period. Formal applications for secondary dwelling
units are rare, however code enforcement cases resulting from illegally converted garages and
guesthouses into second units are common. Easing the process for reviewing secondary units,
while establishing firm development standards, may result in fewer illegal conversions and
increased regulation.
Amendments to the existing zoning text governing secondary dwelling units must be done in
order to meet the changing government code. Considering the spirit of the changes enacted by
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the local housing
demands that the City is currently facing other changes that may facilitate secondary dwelling
units are appropriate at this time. These changes, the most significant of which are to allow
detached units and require a single parking space for the unit, help to remove obstacles that
inhibited the feasible development of secondary dwelling units. Additional amendments are also
necessary in order to protect existing neighborhoods and ensure compatible, consistent
development of secondary dwelling units. The attached legislative draft contains proposed text
changes as discussed above in items 1-3. Item 4 should be referred to the Housing Element
Update Task Force as a recommendation to explore with the Housing Element Update.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Refer the item back to staff for additional amendments and research.
2. Adopt an ordinance and findings to prohibit secondary dwelling units altogether. In order
to prohibit secondary units the City must adopt findings acknowledging that the ordinance
may limit housing opportunities of the region. Additionally the City must adopt findings
that specific adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare would result from
allowing secondary units within single family and multifamily-zoned areas. These
findings would have to justify an ordinance prohibiting secondary units.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Legislative Draft, Municipal Code chapter 17.2 1, Secondary Dwelling Units.
Attachment 2: Legislative Draft, Government Code section 65852.2, effective July 1, 2003.
G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Special Projects\AB 1866\PC Staff report.DOC
4
Attachment 2
Chapter 17.21
SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
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 Periedie review Violations.
17.21.010 Purpose.
A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.150) and
(.2), which allows the city to eaaditienafly pert E perform architectural review and
apply specific development standards to secondary dwelling units in residential
zones.
B. The city intends to regulate secondary dwelling units as permitted by Section
65852.2(a) of the State Government Code, 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 secondary
dwelling 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. Secondary dwelling units are
intended to provide livable housing at lower cost while providing greater security,
companionship and family support for the occupants.
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.
E. "Primary unit' means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms with
all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter.
F. "Secondary dwelling 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.
G. Studio means
17.21.030 General requirements.
A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or
Attachment_ 2
Chapter 17.21
Legislative draft 3/12/03
procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
B. Areas Where Secondary Dwelling Units Are Allowed. Upon appFeval--ef-an
adfpAnistFafive use pemiit and upon meeting edieF the requirements of this section,
secondary dwelling units may be established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3,
and R-4.
C. Areas Prohibited. Secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit be allowed,
where in the opinion of the director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by
Chapter 2.44 of this code. Secondary dwelling units shall not be allowed on non-
conforming lots.
D. Owner Occupancy. Either the primary unit or secondary dwelling unit must be
owner-occupied as an owner's primary residence.
E. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a
secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit has been
established.
F. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where a
secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit sheA may be attached n eF detached to
or located within the living area of the primary unit on the lot.
H. Size of Secondary Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area of the secondary dwelling unit
shall not exceed four hundred fifty square feet and shall meet the definition of a
studio apartment as defined by Section 17.04.430. The planning commission may
authorize exception to this standard by use permit upon finding that:
1. The purpose of this 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 an
historic or architecturally significant building.
I. Secondary dwelling units are limited to 1 unit per qualifying property.
17.21.040 Performance standards.
A. Design Standards. Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable zoning
regulations such as height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc., except for density
requirements as defined by zoning regulations.
1. Secondary dwelling 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-a3
Attachment 2
Chapter 17.21
Legislative draft 3/12/03
3. Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions
and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
4. Secondary dwelling units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible
with the primary unit. The new structure shall incorporate the traditional
architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including
window and door spacing,exterior materials, and roof pitch and style.
5. The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential
structures. Unless adequate setbacks_justify otherwise,secondary dwelling units
that result in two-story construction shall.be setback from the first floor to allow
for solar access and reduced overlook.
6. Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the
existing dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street
appearance of the existing residence shall be discouraged. Exceptions to yard
requirements shall-be discouraged and shall be subject to Use.Permit-review.
7. Private Open Saace: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must
be provided for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square
feet to be provided for the primary residence on the property. Private open
space provided at ground level must have a minimum dimension in every
direction of at least 10 feet or 6 feet for spaces above ground level on an elevated
deck or balcony.
8. Significant alterations to landform (grading in excess of 300 cubic yards) or
removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged for the
placement of a secondary dwelling unit.
9. A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A
minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate
parking areas from adjacent properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be
required for areas between secondary unit and adiacent properties.
10. Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall
require 1 parking space, regardless of zoning district.
11.Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new
construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural
Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for
treatment of a historic property.
17.21.050 Procedure requirements.
Prior to filing building plans with the city building division, the following shall be met:
A. 11- Architectural Review Required. All requests shall receive architectural review in
accordance with the adopted architectural review commission ordinance and
Community Design guidelines. The director shall determine, upon receiving
complete application, whether the project is declared minor or incidental. In the event
3��
Attachment 2
Chapter 17.21
Legislative draft 3/12/03
the director determines that the project is not minor or incidental, it shall be
forwarded to the architectural review commission for review. All new development
projects within Historic Districts or within properties that contain designated
historic structures shall be referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee to be
reviewed for consistency with Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a
historic property.
B. Application Contents. All proposed secondary dwelling unit requests shall be by
formal application for architectural review.
C. 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 and community
development director, agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied.
Upon approval of the adminis nit and architectural review
and a building permit, this agreement shall be recorded in the office of the
county recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the
property of the use and owner occupancy restrictions affecting the property.
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 secondary dwelling units and
establishing the use pursuant to this section shall also agree to reimburse
the city for costs of all necessary enforcement actions.
D. & Appeal. Appeal procedures for this section shall be as provided by chapter
2.48.080 (Appeals-Architectural Review) the same as set feFth f&- administr-ative use
peFFF&s as defined in the eityzening r-egulatiens-.
17.21.060 Per-iedie inview Violations.
years
Violation of any of the provisions shall be basis for r-eveeatien of the use pemiit in
amer-danee with Chapter- . code enforcement action.
O Attachment 3_
RESOLUTION NO. 5362 -03
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.21 OF THE
ZONING CODE -SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
TA 194-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
March 12, 2003 to consider necessary amendments to Chapter 17.21 of the Zoning Code
pertaining to Secondary Dwelling Units; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered
public testimony, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, adoption of an ordinance regarding Secondary Dwelling Units is exempt
from CEQA as described in CEQA section 15282 (i), Statutory exemptions;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act as described in Section 15282 (i), statutory
exemptions.
2. The proposed amendments are necessary to meet changing Government Code provisions
designed to encourage the development of secondary dwelling units as established with
Assembly Bill 1866.
3. The proposed amendments will encourage the development of additional secondary dwelling
units as an alternate form of affordable infill housing, consistent with the intent of AB 1866.
4. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood or
cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the secondary dwelling units will
be subject to performance standards and development standards consistent with each
residential zoning district.
SECTION 2. Action.
1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of
amendments as identified in Exhibit A, Chapter 17.21 Legislative Draft Chapter Zoning
Coder Chapter 17.21.
2. The Planning Commission hereby forwards the following items to the Housing Element
Update Task Force for consideration as additional incentives to encourage the development
Resolution No. 5362-03 O Attachment 3
Page 2
of secondary dwelling units:
a. Consideration of secondary dwelling units on properties that contain single family
dwellings outside of the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts. Many properties in the O, C-S,
C-R and C-T zones currently contain individual single-family residences that might be
suitable for consideration of a secondary dwelling unit, although the current density
standards do not allow it.
b. Secondary dwelling units could be deed restricted as affordable dwelling units. The main
goal of the Government Code is to create a supply of affordable rental units. The City
should consider requiring all secondary dwelling units to be deed restricted as affordable
dwelling units.
3. The Planning Commission does hereby refer the following items back to staff for analysis
and report back to the commission following adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Consider larger secondary dwelling units, above the current size limit of 450 square
feet.
b. Consider not requiring a parking space for a secondary dwelling unit, instead requiring a
covenant that allows the only occupants who do not own or utilize a motor vehicle.
C. Since many infill properties contain constraints due to property dimensions and
required setbacks, alternative-parking arrangements should be encouraged.
Alternative parking arrangements, such as tandem parking, could allow additional
yard space and ample setbacks to be retained while accommodating required parking.
Within or adjacent to the downtown area, alternative parking configurations should
be encouraged.
d. Allowing secondary dwelling units on non-conforming lots if findings can be made that
all development on the property will not exceed maximum lot coverage standards for
the applicable zoning district and the secondary dwelling unit can be accommodated
without yard exceptions or overlook potential.
On motion by Commissioner Caruso, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Christianson, Cooper,Loh and Osborne
NOES: Commrs. Boswell and Caruso
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 12`h day of March, 2003.
onal Whisenand, Secretary
Planning Commission
3-)
Resolution No. 5362-03 U Attachment 3
Page 3
Exhibit A
Chapter 17.21
SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
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 Periedie Feview Violations.
17.21.010 Purpose.
A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.150) and
(.2), which allows the city to eenditienallypetmit review and apply specific
performance standards to secondary dwelling units in residential zones.
B. The city intends to regulate secondary dwelling units as permitted by Section
65852.2(a) of the State Government Code, 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 secondary
dwelling 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. Secondary dwelling units are intended
to provide livable housing at lower cost while providing greater security,
companionship and family support for the occupants.
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.
E. "Primary unit" means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms with
all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter.
F. "Secondary dwelling 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.
17.21.030 General requirements.
A. Application. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of standard or
I ^\
Resolution No. 5362-03 l Attachment 3
Page 4
procedure, conventional zoning standards and procedures shall apply.
B. Areas Where Secondary Dwelling Units Are Allowed. Upon appFeval--of an
meeting eah the requirements of this section,
secondary dwelling units may be established in the following zones: R-1, R-2, R-3,
and R-4.
C. Areas Prohibited. Secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit be allowed,
where in the opinion of the director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by
Chapter 2.44 of this code.
D. Qwner-Gesupaney. Either-the pr-ifnar-y unit er-seeendai:y dwelling Unit must be ewfier-
D. €r. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed
where a secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit has been
established.
E. R Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where a
secondary dwelling 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.
F. G Unit Type Allowed. A secondary dwelling unit sly mav be attached,,of detached,to
or located within the living area of the primary unit on the lot.
G. 1- Size of Secondary Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area of the secondary dwelling unit
shall not exceed four hundred fifty square feet and shall meet the definition of a
studio apartment as defined by Section 17.04.430. The planning commission may
authorize exception to this standard by use permit upon finding that:
1. The purpose of this 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 an
historic or architecturally significant building.
H. Secondary dwelling units are limited to 1 unit per qualifying property.
17.21.040 Performance standards.
A. Design Standards. Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable zoning
regulations such as height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc., except for density
requirements as defined by zoning regulations.
1. Secondary dwelling 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. Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions
and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
4. Secondary dwelling units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible
with the primary unit.
S. The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential
Resolution No. 5362-03 — Attachment
Page 5
structures.
6. Significant alterations to landform (grading in excess of 300 cubic yards) or
removal of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged for the
placement of a secondary dwelling unit.
7. Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall
require 1 parking space,regardless of zoning district.
8. Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new
construction of a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural
Heritage Committee for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for
treatment of a historic property.
17.21.050 Procedure requirements.
The following shall be reviewed upon submittal of a building permit application to the
Community Development Department: Pf-ieF tO filing building plans With the eity building
us Rffi4 as defified-
A. 13 . All requests shall ..eeeive ,...eh:teefi,.e' Feview in
be
reviewed for consistency with the City's Community Design guidelines. The
€e1=review.
B. All new development proiects within Historic Districts or within properties that
contain designated historic structures shall be referred to the Cultural Heritage
Committee to be reviewed for consistency with Secretary of Interior Standards
for treatment of a historic property.
G. nppheat:en nentent, All proposed . fide..,, dwelling unit requests shell he by
i. ()%tneFs AgFeefaeat with-the City. The owner- shall enter- into EM agfeefRefit
the e:t., .,tteme.. and eeffHnt..:t..
and a building peffyAt, this agreefaefit shall be feeerded in the effiee of
TF owner- eeeupaney iset possible, then the use ,:11 to f fflinate and the
diiCCCtlr.
2. D.�e a e... e�� als Ce seeendefy dwelling ks 7
av�aaJ v.,aava., ava.
Resolution No. 5362-03 Attachment_ 3
Page 6
F6- Appeal. Appeal pfeeedums fer- this seefieft shall be as pr-evided by chapter-
2.49.080 (Appeals AFehiteetufal Review) the same as set fefth fef: adff&ii
17.21.060 .
yeafthereafter,
o
Attachment 4
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 12, 2003
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. of
Wednesday, March 12, 2003; in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Jim Aiken, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper,
Carlyn Christianson; James Caruso, and Chairwoman Alice Loh.
Absent: None.
Staff: Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Interim City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Deputy
Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Community
Development Director John Mandeville, and Recording Secretary Irene
Pierce.
ACEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE:
The Minutes of December 4, 2002, were accepted as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her thoughts on residential zoning
and requested no changes be allowed in the General Plan.
Jean Anderson, 544 Pacific Street #210, expressed concern that new construction will
have bicycle parking, some of which is situated so that it denies people the ability to
park their bikes. She commented there is no bicycle parking associated with the new
buildings at Madonna Plaza such as Best. Buy and Borders. She mentioned that she
would like routine accommodations for pedestrians, the disabled, and cyclists added to
the language. She requested that the Planning Commission and Planning Department
take a closer look at bicycle parking.
Deputy Director Whisenand noted that the Planning Department is addressing bicycle
parking and that many of the projects she mentioned are operating under old ARO
approval dating back to the mid 90's. He noted that the City has updated the ARO
guidelines.
��3�
11
Attachment 4
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2003
Page 2
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS;
1. Citywide. TA 194-02; Request to amend the City's Second Dwelling Unit
Regulations to comply with changes in State law, City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant.
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report. He explained that staff is
asking the Commission to review the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.21 of the
Zoning Regulations and recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the
revisions consistent with the recently revised Government Code Section 65852.2, and
offer direction to the Housing Element Update Task Force to review additional changes
to Chapter 17.21 for a future recommendation to the Planning Commission as part of
their report on the Housing Element update process.
Commr. Cooper asked if architectural review can occur strictly within the administrative
review level, and expressed concern that ARC review is conducted without a public
hearing.
Interim City Attorney Gil Trujillo interjected and explained how ministerial architectural
review is done and noted there are two thoughts.; 1) leave it alone to go through the
Architectural Review Process, and 2) provide some type of design guidelines to guide
that architectural review.
Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that there are various levels of architectural review,
which are subject to staff review.
Attorney Trujillo pointed out that when a project goes through architectural review under
this Second Unit Ordinance, the ARC would not deny the project but more likely
approve it subject to conditions that it meets architectural review criteria. He explained
this law is an attempt to address the discretionary permit where a project would be
denied, regardless of what conditions are attached. It would take away the ability to
deny the project outright.
Chairwoman Loh noted that the 1999 Government Code states that permits should be
streamlined.
Commr. Aiken asked if the open space requirement of 250 square feet is exclusive for
each or could it be combined for the primary dwelling along with the secondary dwelling.
Planner Dunsmore responded the 250 square feet is exclusively for the secondary
dwelling.
Commr. Aiken asked if there are options available if the number is exceeded on
secondary dwellings units that are 450 square feet or smaller.
3-93
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 4
March 12, 2003 - -
Page 3
Planner Dunsmore replied that the language does indicate that, but they are exploring
the possibility of requiring a use permit to exceed that size, and if it would be consistent
with Government Code.
Deputy Director Whisenand interjected this is one of the categories they would
recommend for further study.
Commr. Aiken questioned if it would be bothersome to condition all secondary dwelling
units to be affordable.
Planner Dunsmore responded that each one would be deed restricted based on the
underlying property, and there would probably be some difficulty in enforcing this.
Deputy Director Whisenand interjected that it would add a layer of review and regulation
by the City.
Attorney Trujillo stated this is an issue that would be worth looking into, but it does go
beyond Assembly Bill 1866. There is a chance that it could raise an issue that could be
litigated, but he recommended that it not be incorporated into the ordinance at this
meeting.
Commr. Caruso asked what amount would the City allow in rent if an affordable studio
unit were built
Planner Dunsmore replied that the moderate affordability criteria for a studio unit is
approximately $1,100.00, which is above the market rate for studio rental unit.
Commr. Caruso questioned if one parking space is required, could this parking space
be in the driveway of the main house.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied that scenario would require a tandem-parking
request.
Commr. Caruso asked where the parking space for the second unit would be located.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied that many houses have been built with three car
garages and others have an area beside the garage.
Commr. Caruso asked how many second units have been constructed.
Deputy Director Whisenand responded that 14 have been constructed in the last 20
years.
Chairwoman Loh noted the Government Code allows the second unit to be 1,200
square feet instead of 450 square feet, and questioned how they came up with 450
square feet.
/ \I
Draft Planning Commission'Minutes Attachment 4
March 12, 2003
Page 4
Deputy Director Whisenand explained they came up with 450 after some lengthy
discussion on a prior Planning Commission issue, but noted the key is that the
Commission can come up with any standard they want.
In response to a questions, Attorney Trujillo noted that Assembly Bill 1866 provides that
it is totally within the discretion of the Commission and the City to allow the unit to be
owner occupied.
Commr. Cooper noted there is no prohibition in the draft legislation against decreasing
the restrictions, and questioned if they are following the spirit of this legislation by
making the requirements so much more restrictive than what they were before.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied that was a good issue raised and is something the
Commission could discuss, but expressed sensitivity to the quality of the
neighborhoods.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt that when land is purchased in a restricted
area, it is restricted and has certain codes.
Schirod Atray, SLO, expressed support for staff's recommendation to conform to the
California Code. He commented on the shortage of housing and the overcrowding. He
felt the proposed development.with high-density zoning as large as three to four acres
should be exempt from this Architectural Review control.
Ken Kohlon, 359 Los Cerros Drive, expressed support to with the State's mandate to
provide for secondary units. He asked what the definition is of a planned development
unit .
Planer Dunsmore explained a planned development is a series of dwelling units or
homes that are on individual lots, similar to a condominium complex, where they are
planned out ahead of time and usually have exemptions to general zoning setbacks
standards.
Mr. Kohlon mentioned there are planned developments in this community that have
exceedingly large lots and stated he hoped the Commission would deem a space as
large as one acre capable of not only a single-family residence, but a secondary unit as
well. He felt that if a secondary housing unit was proposed that fell within an existing
envelop of an existing building that had already been Architectural Review, that there
would be no need for further architectural review.
Pat Beck, County of SLO Planning, expressed encouragement to adopt this ordinance
and noted there are two secondary dwellings on her block and explained who occupies
these units. She stated these are people that are using these neighborhoods the same
way she is using it. She felt leaving the flexibility for detached housing instead of the
current attached housing gives housing a design that could create more garden
Attachment 4
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 12, 2003
Page 5
apartment feeling instead of a small piece of your house that is broken away. She
recommended not using Architectural Review because it is not essential for a small unit.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, commented that these units need to be affordable to
the very low- and low-income households and deed restrictions need to be applied to
the development of these structures. He noted when units are built on lots with existing
houses, it drives up housing costs for a new buyer because it is included in the price.
He expressed concern, matching that of RON, on how the enforcement of owner
occupancy is going to work. He was also concerned with the impacts that are going to
be felt in the neighborhoods when the standards are loosened.
Sandra Roley, Garden Street, noted how obvious it is that people are talking about
different areas of the City where there are different impacts. She felt that the spirit of
the law vs. the letter of the law applies to the quality of life for the renter, as well as for
the homeowner and people in the residential areas. She noted Assembly Bill 1866
would be a good thing since architectural review is permitted. She stated this ordinance
does not provide affordable housing, it just provides housing, and because the
development potential is there it makes that piece of property more expensive. She felt.
that without something indicating that this is deeded as affordable housing and recorded
that way with the County, they are not doing anything with affordable housing.
Chairwoman Loh asked if parking is needed if it is in the downtown core.
Ms. Roley replied it depends on the area; two parking spaces would be too much, but
the possibility of no parking spaces would be going to far. She felt that one space
would be fair.
Commr. Cooper noted there is no intent in the legislation to delete architectural review,
but whether to confine it to ministerial review on the part of the Director or staff.
Ms. Roley felt that as long as there is an Architectural Review Commission, it should be
utilized.
Steve Delmartini, 962 Mill Street, commented on the affordable rule on rental housing
and questioned how much could be charged to a tenant under the affordable rules for
the City of San Luis Obispo. He felt it could go over a $1,000.00.
Planner Dunsmore noted that for a moderate-income category, a studio unit is over
$1,000.00, but for low- and very low-income, it is well below $1,000.00.
Commr. Cooper questioned what the confusion is on the Legislative Draft 65862.2. He
explained that it states that the application shall be considered ministerially, without
discretionary review or a hearing.
City Attorney Trujillo explained that the language is somewhat vague and one
interpretation could mean that its application shall be considered administratively
without a review for approval of the use, and is actually establishing the second unit.
'2) �tP
Attachment 4
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
March 12,2003
Page 6
Commr. Cooper asked if it would go to the full commission for a ministerial action, and
would the public be notified of this hearing, but unable to speak to the application.
City Attorney Trujillo replied no, and explained there would be another statute, the
Brown Act, that would come into play, and this requires public participation.
Deputy Director Whisenand reiterated this is an issue area, and if the Commission feels
that it requires Architectural Review by the Commission, they could specify that, and if
they feel that it just has architectural standards applied by the Community Development
Department Staff ministerially, then this could be written into the code.
Ms. Beck asked if it were the intent to determine what the renter could afford and to see
if they could stay within some defined level, and what the maximum amount could be
charged for the unit.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained this is one of the reasons why they are
recommending that if there are going to be some restrictions to tie the affordability to
refer that back for further study.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Caruso moved to recommend the City Council adopt staff's recommendation
with some of the following changes; Identify that a 450 square foot second residence.
attached or detached, will be subject to staff review of desiqn standards and not require
formal ARC review, but will be in compliance with ordinance performance standards.
Seconded by Commr. Cooper.
Community Development Director John Mandeville interjected that the State statute
expressly precludes the City from including the second dwelling units as part of the
densities of the areas that they are located in, so they do not have the ability to regulate
these based on density.
There was discussion on the 450 square feet.
Commr. Caruso commented that he does not feel the Housing Task Force was the
appropriate place to refer this, and felt the Planning Commission would be a better
option.
Commr. Cooper requested an amendment that deed restrictions be included for
affordability.
Deputy Director Whisenand reiterated that there should be more research done to find
out if it is legal.
� �3`l
O
Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 4
March 12, 2003
Page 7
Commr. Cooper requested an amendment that there be more specific definitions of the
types of non-conforming lots.
Deputy Director Whisenand recapped a comment made by Chairwoman Loh to let the
development standards dictate whether or not there should be a second dwelling, and if
they meet the setback requirements, they just eliminate the non-conforming status.
Commr Cooper asked the motion maker if he would accept that as an amendment to
delete non-conforming?
Commr. Caruso accepted the amendment..
Commr. Christianson stated that if they do not start building housing in this community,
it is going to be out on the open spaces and the hillsides and this means they are going
to have to build in the City. She felt there are too many restrictions and people have to
jump through too many hoops to build. She offered an amendment that eliminates the
Legislative Draft non-conforming language, owner occupancy language, added
language on number 4, second sentence on number 5, number 6, number 7, number 9.
Chairwoman Loh noted that the .Legislative Draft 17.21.040 and the City's Draft are
almost identical.
Commr. Christianson noted she would send all six of the suggestions that were laid out
by staff on page 9 of the report to the Housing Element Update Task Force and would
like to hear their feedback as community members on these issues.
Commr. Cooper noted he is sympathetic to these proposed amendments, but he
suggested a follow up motion, which is to ask the Housing Element Update Task Force
to review these other portions of the performance specifications.
Commr. Boswell questioned if the motion does not address the suggested items to
forward to the Housing Element Update Task Force 1 thru 5?
Chairwoman Loh replied no.
The Commission went through the list and conducted a straw vote on Commissioner
Christianson's amendments.
Commr. Christianson recommended referring all six items under Section 4 of the staff
report to the Housing Element Update Task Force to get feedback on them.
Commr. Boswell suggested that 1 thru 4 come back to the Planning Commission for
further discussion, and 5 & 6 go on to the Housing Element Update Task Force.
Deputy Director Whisenand suggested referring 1 thru 4 for further study after the
update of the Housing Element.
3-3g
Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 4
March 12, 2003
Page 8
Commr. Boswell concurred with the suggestion.
Commr. Caruso as the Motion Maker accepted Commissioner Christianson's
amendments.
Commr. Cooper as the Seconder accepted Commissioner Christianson's amendments.
Comms.. Boswell _requested an amendment that 1 thru .4 come to the Planning
Commission after the Housing Task force finishes their update, and 5 & 6 would go to
the Housing Task Force.
Commr. Caruso as the motion maker accepted Commissioner Boswell's amendment.
Commr. Cooper as the Seconder accepted Commissioner Boswell's amendment.
City Attorney Trujillo commented on the Legislative Draft the very last section on
violation 17.21.060 and recommended that it be stricken in its entirety because it does
not add anything that is not already part of the code.
Deputy Director Whisenand noted that staff will modify the language on Legislative Draft.
17.21.050 (a) that has specific language on Architectural Review in accordance with
Architectural Review Commission Ordinance and they would modify that as necessary
to clarify the motion to insure that it is not requiring formal architectural review.
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Aiken, Osborne, Christianson, and Loh.
NOES: Commrs. Caruso and Boswell.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 4-2.
BUSINESS ITEM
2. Citywide General Plan Annual Report: Discussion of the report on the status of
the General Plan its implementation. (Continued from February 12, 2003_ ) (Mike
Draze
This item was continued to March 26, 2003, without discussion.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
3 .91
Draft Planning Commission Min�utes Attachment 4
March 12, 2003
Page 9
March 26, 2003: Expansion of downtown districts, Mission College Prep fence heibht
exception appeal.
April 9, 2003: Bowden EIR; Firestone Grill Appeal of a Nighbclub use; Open Space
Status.
April 23, 2003: Costco EIR.
Deputy Director Whisenand commented on a new law that went into effect on sign
regulations.
Director Mandeville mentioned the City Council went through its budget goal-setting
process and asked if the Commission would be interested in reviewing the goals that
the Council established and discuss the status of the Planning Commission goals that
were submitted.
4. Commission:
Chairwoman Loh expressed congratulations to Commr. Aiken on his reappointment to
the Planning Commission for another four years.
Commr. Caruso commented On a Housing Update Task Force meeting that would be
taking place, noting he would bring back information that was discussed.
Director Mandeville commented on what form of input from the task force would the
Commission find useful.
There was discussion on the Housing Task Force.
Commr. Christianson requested a summary or minutes from the Housing Task Force
meetings.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to
the next regular meeting scheduled for March 26, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber.
Respectfully submitted by
Irene E. Pierce
Recording Secretary
Attachment 5
ORDINANCE NO. (2003 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS CHAPTER 17.21, SECONDARY
DWELLING UNITS,IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 1866 .
TA 194-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 2003
and recommended approval of amendments to Chapter 17.21 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 15, 2003 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with
the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, other applicable City ordinances and
Assembly Bill 1866; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Text Change is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act as described in CEQA section 15282 (i), Statutory exemptions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. The City Council finds and determines that the project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act as described in Section 15282 (i), statutory exemptions.
2. The proposed amendments are necessary to meet changing Government Code provisions
designed to encourage the development of secondary dwelling units as established by
Assembly Bill 1866.
3. The proposed amendments will encourage the development of additional secondary
dwelling units as an alternate form of affordable infill housing, consistent with the intent
of AB 1866.
4. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood
or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the secondary dwelling units
will be subject to performance standards and development standards consistent with each
residential zoning district.
SECTION 2. Action. The Zoning Regulations Amendment (TA 194-02), as depicted on
attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
3-q
U Attachment 5
Ordinance No. (2003 Series)
TA 194-02
Page 2
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 15th day of April, 2003, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of 2003, on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
704
Acting City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo
Council Ordinance
Exhibit "A"
Chapter 17.21
SECONDARY DWELLING 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.
17.21.010 Purpose.
A. This chapter is intended to implement Government Code Section 65852(.150) and
(.2), which allows the city to review and apply specific performance standards to
secondary dwelling units in residential zones.
B. The city intends to regulate secondary dwelling units as permitted by Section
65852.2(a) of the State Government Code, 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 secondary
dwelling 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. Secondary dwelling units are
intended to provide livable housing at lower cost while providing greater security,
companionship and family support for the occupants.
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.
E. "Primary unit" means an existing single-family residential structure that conforms with
all zoning regulations in effect, including this chapter.
F. "Secondary dwelling 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.
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.
3-�3
Chapter 17.21
Legislative draft 3/12/03
B. Areas Where Secondary Dwelling Units Are Allowed. Upon meeting the
requirements of this section, secondary dwelling units may be established in the
following zones: R-1,R-2, R-3, and R-4.
C. Areas Prohibited. Secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit be allowed,
where in the opinion of the director, a resource deficiency exists as defined by
Chapter 2.44 of this code.
D. No Subdivision of Property. No subdivision of property shall be allowed where a
secondary dwelling 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 secondary dwelling unit has been
established.
E. Sale of Property. This section shall also apply to new owners of property where a
secondary dwelling 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.
F. Unit Type Allowed. A secondary dwelling unit may be attached, detached, or located
within the living area of the primary unit on the lot.
G. Size of Secondary Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area of the secondary dwelling unit
'shall not exceed four hundred fifty square feet and shall meet the definition of a
studio apartment as defined by Section 17.04.430. The planning commission may
authorize exception to this standard by use permit upon finding that:
1. The purpose of this 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 an
historic or architecturally significant building.
H. Secondary dwelling units are limited to 1 unit per qualifying property.
17.21.040 Performance standards.
A. Design Standards. Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable zoning
regulations such as height, yards, parking, building coverage, etc., except for density
requirements as defined by zoning regulations.
1. Secondary dwelling 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.
5 ,44
Chapter 17.21
Legislative draft 3/12/03
3. Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions
and provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants.
4. Secondary dwelling units shall also be architecturally and functionally compatible
with the primary unit.
5. The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential
structures.
6. Significant alterations to landform (grading in excess of 300 cubic yards) or removal
of native trees or significant landscape trees shall be discouraged for the placement of
a secondary dwelling unit.
7. Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1
parking space,regardless of zoning district.
8. Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of
a secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for
consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic
property.
17.21.050 Procedure requirements.
The following shall be reviewed upon submittal of a building permit application to the
Community Development Department:
A. All requests shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Community Design
guidelines.
B. All new development projects within Historic Districts or within properties that contain
designated historic structures shall be referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee to be
reviewed for consistency with Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic
property.
Ken and Patricia KO.-..,:EN RED FILE
359 Los Cerros Drive MEETING AGENDA Phone/Fax- (805) 545-5880
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 D ATE ITEM #6y
e-mail: kkohlen@calpoly.edu
April 3, 2003 =_;,_NciL 2-COD Oi:;
-y. AaFIN DIR
RECEIVED -500 C?-FIRECHIL
City Council -,-,ATTORNEY aPW DIR
San Luis Obispo APR 11 2003 I 1•'OLERKORIG gPOLICECH,
I QEF yHEAOS. D—REC DIR
Dear City Council: SLO CITY COUNCIL I �' � _. 7 _ p U*nL DIR
-L�. C7 HR DIR
Subject: Amendments to Chapter 17.21 of the Municipal Code updating the secondary
unit ordinance in response to AB 1866 (TA 194-02). Meeting of April 15, 2003
Further to my letter to City Council members dated March 13, I have received a response from
Mr. Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director, Community Development of the City of SLO dated
March 27.
As you know the State has mandated implementation of AB 1866 which has the intent of
increasing secondary housing units within the state and making the application process for these
secondary housing units much more simplified. The City of SLO is currently working on a plan
to implement this state law. The issue of concern is a secondary dwelling unit (sdu) in planned
development zones (PD).
After a thorough review of AB 1866, the Council Agenda Report and the documents presented
and discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on March 12, we raise the following issues.
It is completely possible for a sdu in a PD to meet all the requirements set out by AB 1866
(65852.2 - B1). Section B2 states "no other local ordinance, policy or regulation shall be the
basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision and section B5
states: "a second unit which confirms to the requirements of this subdivision shall NOT be
considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located..." and Section C
which states "No local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes second units
within single-family or multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings
acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and further
contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfare that
would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify
adopting the ordinance."
Thus it would appear that Mr. Whisenand's findings and recommendations in his letter to us of
3/27 do not seem to follow the intent of AB 1866. It would also appear as if the proposed
recommendation submitted to the City Council (TA 194-02) for their adoption at the April 15
meeting - specifically section 17.21.030 Section C - does not comply with the intent of AB 1866
and should be amended in the proposed Ordinance change.
We completely disagree with Mr. Whisenand's findings. Notably he states that "all planned
developments do share characteristics that would make adding a secondary dwelling unit very
challenging." As stated previously this is not the case for most of the homes in The Foothills,
where lot sizes range from 6055 square feet to 3.24 acres. Indeed the secondary housing unit
that we propose was built 16 years ago as a studio as part of the original design of the home that
was approved by the architectural review committee. However, it cannot be permitted under the
amended ordinance that L Planning Commission and staff h" el forwarded to you for
ratification at your April 15' meeting. I am attempting to resolve this issue and it seems to me
this is a most timely opportunity. I restate that all of`the lots in the Foothills' subdivision are
more than the 6000-sq. ft. lot size required to add a 2nd. dwelling unit under the proposed
amendment. My own lot is 3.17 acres with a buildable area of 28,000 sq. ft. and the studio space
is 380 sq. ft. (less than the 450 sq. ft. allowed). Additionally there are 5 off street parking spaces,
and the lot also provides for more than 250 sq. ft. of private yard space (recommended by the
City).
As stated in our earlier correspondence that included a detailed map with lot descriptions of The
Foothills subdivision, many of the lots within this R1-PD zone are much larger than the required
6000 sq. ft. required. The CC and Rs (civil jurisdiction) to which Mr. Whisenand refers for the
PD primarily specifiy landscaping material and the requirement that the homes in this
subdivision need to go through architectural review. The zoning is R-I which according to the
City R-1 zone description "is intended to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, provide
for compatible infill development in such areas, and prescribe the overall character of newly
subdivided low-density areas." Our R1-PD does precisely that, with the addition that the
maximum density allowed for RI zones - of 7 dwellings per net acre (section 17.16.010) - is
way more than The Foothills subdivision.
As I mentioned, the sdu I propose was designed and approved by the Architecture Review
Committee 16 years ago as a studio space and is completely enclosed within the existing
building envelope as part of the original home design. (This is true for several of my neighbors
who are also endorsing the proposed change to the City ordinance to allow>for sdus in PDs.) No
changes have been made to windows, doors or to the exterior of the building. I am simply
requesting the installation of a small kitchenette so that the party staying in the unit could have
more independence. This is precisely the intent of AB 1866: "Second units provide housing for
family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at
below market prices within existing neighborhoods." It is also in accordance with the SLO City
General Plan: "support the production of housing that is affordable to a variety of income groups,
especially when it can be incorporated into existing neighborhoods. The Planning Commission
determined that encouraging secondary dwelling units that are well designed and compatible
with the neighborhood is an acceptable way to actively seek additional units on infill sites."
Mr. Whisenand in his letter states that to go through the City with a revised PD plan "would be a
lengthy process that would work directly against the intent of AB 1866." 1 totally agree and that
is why it would be prudent for the City to write language into the implementation plan of AB
1866 that would allow interested individual property owners who reside within a RI-PD zone to
go through the same criteria as others who reside in a RI zone (with possible additional
performance standards to protect the character of the PD - see attached list of suggested
additional standards). The existing barriers established by the City are perhaps the reason why
there have been only 14 sdus legally approved by the City over the past 20 years (TA 194-02 p.
3.3). Mr. Whisenand goes on to explain how the nature of a PD may be changed and that the CC
and Rs would have to be amended. In the Foothills subdivision the nature of the PD would NOT
be changed at all. The Foothills CC and Rs. specify mandated landscaping materials and that all
of the homes go through architectural review. He further suggests that perhaps for NEW PDs
criteria could be established for secondary dwelling units. By allowing future PDs this
opportunity at the same time as disallowing existing PDs the same opportunity seems to me
inconsistent, discriminatory, and possibly illegal. I would request that the Council either delete
17.21.030 Section C or include language to provide for inclusion of 17.21.030 section C with
the sante criteria as for other R1 zones (possibly with additional performance standards).
• Mr. Whisenand also states(�_,i; "many people choose to live within , planned development with
the knowledge that their neighborhood is protected by an overriding set of development
standards and code restrictions". Isn't the same true of those who have purchased homes in an
existing R-1 zone who find out that indeed secondary dwelling units are now allowed and even
encouraged? 'When a member of the public addressed this specific issue at the Planning
Commission meeting of March 12, 2003 the response from staff was "it's a State mandate". We
suggest that the same state mandate applies to PD zones. Indeed in the Government Code
section 65852.2 (B) (2) it states that: "No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the
basis of denial of a building permit or use permit under this subdivision". And section 65852.2
(B) (5) specifically states that: " A second unit which conforms to the requirements of this
subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is
located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general
plan and zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be considered in the
application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth". In other
words the secondary unit may not be deemed as increasing the density.
I would request that the Council amend slightly the proposed amended ordinance to allow for
secondary dwelling units in existing PD projects with the same strict and concise performance
criteria as other R I zones that would protect the sensitivity of the project and homogeneity of the
city. We have drafted the proposed changes and have attached them for your consideration.
This proposed amendment is endorsed by numerous Foothills neighbors.
YK
rohlen Patricia Kohlen
Professor of Architecture, Cal Poly
Attachment: proposed revised amendment to Ciy Ordinance TA 19402 signed by neighbors
CC: City Council
Ken Hampian, CAO
John Mandeville, Director, Community Development
Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director, Community Development/Development Review
Mike Draze, Deputy Director, Community Development/Long Range Planning
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner
01
April 9, 2003
City Council
San Luis Obispo
Dear City Council:
Please accept the following amendment to Council Ordinance Chapter 17.21 which
will de discussed at your meeting on April 15, 2003.
Whereas the State of California has mandated that the development of secondary
dwelling units be.encouraged and facilitated in Assembly Bill 1866; and
Whereas the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission and Planning Staff
have proposed an amendment to the City Ordinance Chapter 17.21 to comply with
said State mandate; and
Whereas said amendment in' section 1.7.21.030 C prohibits secondary dwelling
units in planned development projects we the undersigned residents of the Foothills
subdivision request that you the City Council make 2 changes to the proposed
amendment as follows:
1. Strike the words "or planned development project' from 17.21.030 C,
General requirements.
2. Add to 17.21.040 A Performance standards:
Item #9. Secondary dwelling units in planned development projects
existing prior to July 1, 2003 must be completely within the allowed
building envelope which has already been approved and which meets all
other performance standards of this ordinance.
We the undersigned feel that these changes are justified for the following reasons:
1. All of the lots in our subdivision are greater in size than the 6000 square foot
minimum required for secondary dwelling units in R-1 zones. They range
from 6055 square feet to 3.24 acres.
2. Many homes have bedrooms and or dens or family rooms and storage spaces
that are unoccupied as the result of changing family demographics.
3. Those spaces can currently and legally be occupied by unlimited numbers of
family members, health care providers, or friends or rented to others
without the need for additional parking or open space that this ordinance
would provide for.
4. The addition of bathrooms, if not already available, and cooking facilities to
those spaces provides for complete independent living facilities which is the
intent of AB 1866 and in accordance with the City of SLO's General Plan
Land Use Element and Housing Element.
5. Government Code section 65852.2 (B) (5) specifically states that: " A
second unit which conforms to the requirements of this subdivision shall not
be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is
located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with
the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The second
units shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance.
policy, or program to limit residential growth". In other words the
secondary unit may not be deemed as increasing the density.
6. The physical nature of the PD and neighborhood will NOT be changed as
secondary dwelling units will only be allowed within the allowed building
envelope that has already gone through architectural review and that meets
all other criteria of this ordinance. The additional work of installing
bathrooms and/or kitchens is done inside the existing structures and in no
way affects the outside of homes.
7. Having secondary dwelling units in our neighborhood as well as others that
this amendment might affect will help to satisfy the State's mandate of
additional housing here in San Luis Obispo with no negative impact and will
minimize sprawl and growth.
Sincerely,
Ken Kohlen t,
Patricia Kohlen
Sharad Atre
May Coors '�_C „s
Dave Bolduan �•
Diane Bolduan )-taet-- t
Scott Potter _ �x
Melanie Potter
1
Burt Polin
Virginia Polin �c mow. ��•✓
SUN- 9Y, MARCH 9, 2001,
Y
WILMAR
TOGNAZZINI
100 YEARS AGO
1
> ;
a � <
Furnished houses scarce
The growth of San Luis Obis-
po is being retarded by lack of
rooms in which to house the
new comers. Only yesterday
parties were obliged to leave,
who wished to remain here.
And this is in spite of the fact
that all the building the carpen-
ters can possibly do is being
done.
Advertisements are running
in the Tribune for parties who
want furnished rooms and no
answers are received.
There is one thing that
would help out and that is that
small families with big houses
might show more of a disposi-
tion to take roomers or let out
parts of their residences fur-
nished—this would be a patriot-
ic move, even if the parties do
not need the income that would
be derived.
Another year, next fall in fact,
f there will be large numbers of
istudents who will come here to
attend the Polytechr& school
to house and feed. If the people
all get too tony to allow board-
ers and roomers in private fam-
ilies the matter should be de-
termined soon so that someone
will feel encouraged to put up
boarding and rooming houses
jbuilt for that purpose.
One thing is demonstrated,
and that is that more houses of
all kinds are needed.
vSlow Polytechnic progress
The carpenter work on the
Diane Reynolds- Secondary Unit Ordina -_-
Page 1
From: <ANCARTER@aol.com>
To: <gtrujillo@slocity.org>
Date: 4/14/03 11:13AM RECEIVED
Subject: Secondary Unit Ordinance
APR 14 20031
Gil,
SL.0 CITY CLERK
I'm having trouble understanding the state government enabling legislation
for secondary units, specifically as it applies to Section 65852.2.B.
My interpretation is that B only applies if a local jurisdiction doesn't take
action under A or C. (See wording in first paragraph of B.1.)
This seems to me the only way to logically interpret things given the issue I
raise below as well as the duplicative language re. local growth ordinances
in A.2 and B.5 and the potential conflicts of A.1.b and B.1.g.
I'm specifically trying to understand the Council's ability, if it so
desires, to restrict.secondary units due to density—for instance no
secondary units in R-1 lots of 6000 sq. ft. or less. A.1.c seems to give
Council that authority, but if B applies even when a local jurisdiction
writes a local ordinance, then B.5 takes that ability away.
Thanks for your help.
Andrew Carter
CC: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>,
<jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <Ipdce@slocity.org>, <khampian@slocity.org>
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA 21COUNCIL CDD DIR
'� ITEM # Z CAO 2 =1N DIR
DA 2 ACAO ZFIRE CHIEF
ZATTORNEY Z PW DIR
jaCLERK/ORIG 1 POLICE CHF
ODP HEADS 2 REC DIR
0 UTIL DIR
2r HR DIR
Richard SchmidtO Q 5444247 M0411413 02:04 PM D 116
To the Council
From Richard Schmidt
Re: Council Agenda 4-15
Attached are some thoughts on background concerning the secondary unit ordinance before
you this week. The comments are in a question-answer white paper format.
Secondary Units in Single Family Neighborhoods: A Good
Thing for SLO?
The Council is being asked to make major changes in the city's secondary dwelling ordinance.
The net effect of the changes recommended by the Planning Commission would be the city's
promotion of secondary units in family neighborhoods.
Is this a wise course? Please consider the following`
1. Is it good pulbic policy to drop the "owner-occupied" rule from the city's secondary
unit ordinance?
The current ordinance is designed to allow secondary units while causing minimal disruption to
family neighborhoods. The owner-occupancy provisions were the lynchpin of this approach: the
owner's presence on premises would mitigate the transient occupancy of the secondary unit by
assuring good conduct and good maintenance. If owner occupancy were to end, the secondary
unit would be reabsorbed into the primary dwelling, and neighborhood character and quality
would thus be protected over the longterm.
Eliminating the owner-occupancy rule would encourage housing speculation in family
neighborhoods. Family neighborhoods would become targets for absentee speculation,
secondary units would become mere "second units" for rental and profit in addition to the "first
unit." Neighborhood quality of life would suffer both from lack of direct owner involvement as
well as from the increasingly transient nature of occupancies, noise, congestion, loss of quality
of life amenities (like open space and separation of residences), etc.
And unlike the situation with the present ordinance, which envisions ultimate return of the
secondary unit into the fabric of the primary unit should circumstances change, without an
owner-occupancy rule, the changes to the family neighborhoods would be permanent and
irreversible.
In effect, the family neighborhood R-1 designation would disappear, to be replaced by an
irreversible multi-family density.
While highly beneficial to the speculator/landlord class, this would be the long term deathknell to
family neighborhoods, and would further exacerbate the high renter to owner ratio that is already
so rapidly overtaking SLO. This change to a predominantly renter-occupancy city will totally
change politics and civic life as well as neighborhoods.
RECEIVED
Secondary Unit White Paper, Page 1 APR 14 2003
SLO CITY COUNCIL,
Richard Schmidt Q5444247 _M4114/3 m2:04PM D2/6
2. Will the promotion of secondary units fall equally and equitably upon all family
neighborhoods?
The impacts of promoting secondary units will fall disproportionately on a some family
neighborhoods, while leaving the most affluent neighborhoods untouched. This is because
most of the newer, more affluent areas have CC&Rs which prohibit secondary units. Older,
nice, stable, but less affluent areas where families really do live, will become hotbeds of
secondary unit speculation. Although the situation will impact city-wide, there are at least three
areas which warrant special concern:
1. San Luis Drive
2. The Alta Vista area
3. The unnamed neighborhood between Santa Rosa and San Luis Mountain, north of
Highway 101 (which is deemed historic district eligible by the CHC).
Is it fair to adopt a policy of promoting secondary units knowing its effects will fall
disproportionately and inequitably upon such neighborhoods?
3. Is it good pulbic policy to drop the "attached dwelling" rule from the city's secondary
unit ordinance?
Promoting detached secondary units in family neighborhoods simply changes the R-1 zone to
the R-2 zone. If this is the city's intent, then the rule change makes sense. This, however, is not
what the city has "contracted" with its citizens to do. (See Section 5).
A. The purpose of the attached unit rule was intimately connected with the present ordinance's
desire to allow secondary units while not allowing them to change the overall character of family
neighborhoods. The rule has worked well in that regard -- the secondary units it has allowed are
essentially invisible, and neighborhood quality has survived.
With a secondary unit carved from the existing primary dwelling's space or attached to it, it is a
physically simple operation to reunite the unit's space with that of the primary dwelling once
owner occupancy (or the need or desire for a second unit) ends. A home with a secondary unit
can easily become just a home once again.
With a detached unit, however, everything changes. How does the city enforce the termination-
of-secondary-unit-upon-loss-of-owner-occupancy provision? Clearly, it cannot. We're stuck with
the freestanding secondary unit forever.
B. The detached unit also completely changes the developed texture of family neighborhoods.
Such units will likely be in back yards, filling space which otherwise would be open to provide
the air, separation and amenities called for in the zoning ordinance and the general plan for low
density neighborhoods. Detached units will add to a feeling of congestion, to a loss of single-
family neighborhood flavor. This represents a radical change in how we regard R-1
neighborhoods.
Secondary Unit White Paper, Page 2
Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 �i14/14/3 02:06 PM ❑316
4. Does state law require the city to allow detached units wherever it allows secondary
units?
Planning staff claims Government Code Section 65852.2 (1) (4) requiresthe city to allow both
attached and detached secondary units. This appears to be a misreading of the law, which
simply says secondary units maybe attached or detached, but does not require both to be
accommodated equally. Furthermore, AB 1866 clearly allows the city verygreat latitude in how
it handles secondary unit requirements so long as it eliminates the existing conditional use
permit requirement. Clearly, the city can keep its attached unit requirement for the single
familyzone, even if it may want to consider permitting detached units in other zones.
5. What does the city's "contract" with its residents say about promoting secondary units
in the family housing zone?
The city has entered into an implicit and explicit contract with its neighborhoods about what is
proper and what is allowed where. Families buy into family neighborhoods believing the city will
honor its contract with them.
Amenities the city has pledged to maintain in family neighborhoods include green backyards,
lack of crowding, peace, quiet, limited dwelling density, a quality of life superior to that of a.
higher density zone. Many families who have bought into neighborhoods will be shocked to
discover, if the current proposals are approved, that the city has unilaterally converted their
neighborhood into a higher density zone. If the city contemplates such a change, in fairness, it
should approach residents of family neighborhoods to obtain their yea or nay to such a radical
alteration of the city-neighborhood contract. (In fact, neighborhood participation statements in
both the LUE and HE seem to require such consultation.)
[Elements of this contract include, among others:
[MC 17.24.010 "The R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for people
who want private open space associated with individual dwellings. It is intended to preserve
existing single-family neighborhoods ..."
["Maximum density: Seven dwellings per net acre." Note that under the current proposal, this
would double, to a density equivalent to the R-2 zone.
[LUE Goal 29 "Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as
part of a neighborhood pattern."
[LUE POolicy2.2.6 "All residential development should be integraed with existing
neighborhoods."
[HE 1.27 "Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods."
[HE 1.27.6 "The City will encourage residents to play a larger role in supporting and improving
neighborhoods and in addressing housing issues."]
Secondary Unit White Paper, Page 3
Richard Schmidt 19 5444247 _,M411413 02:07 PM p 416
I �
6. Housing Affordability
A. Are secondary units "affordable" rental housing?
Proponents claim secondary units provide "affordable" housing. However, there is little basis
to support the claim that they are or would become affordable rental housing. In SLO, rental
secondary units are usually treated as cash cows rented at the highest possible rate to
generate income for the owner. The city's hundreds of secondary rentals are customarialy
rented at market, or even at aggressively upper market rates. The $850 per month 250
square foot unpermitted "cottage" is illustrative of the "affordability' of secondary units.
B. What would be the impact of the city's promoting secondary units on affordability of family
homes in SLO?
Existing single family homes with secondary units get listed in the current market at $100,000
to $150,000 more than comparable homes without a secondary unit. Such price inflation
makes it even harder for a family to afford home ownership than in the already inflated
market. Encouraging more and more secondary units in family neighborhoods would thus
price still more families out of the home ownership market in SLO.
In addition, if the city adopts policies that promote secondary units, it is not just homes with
such units whose prices are driven up. The potential for a second unit will be reflected in the
price of a home. What this potential will cost the prospective home-buying family remains to
be seen, but it will be significant. (At present, for example, the potential for a lot split is
adding about $200,000 onto the price of a family home even though the profits realizable
from such a split are minimal. This situation has come about from the city's promotion of lot
splits.)
Affordability Conclusions: While it cannot be shown that secondary units in fact provide
affordable housing in SLO, it can be shown with certainty that single family homes with
secondary units are unaffordable to families because of the increased cost due to the second
unit. Creating a greater potential for secondary units will make this unffordability of family
housing worse. Overall, the affordability effects of secondary units are negative on SLO's
housing affordability index.
7. Do secondary units cut down on srpawl and reduce commuting?
The issue here is nexus. Is there a demonstrable nexus between secondary units, reducing
sprawl, and reducing commuting? If there is, what is it?
A. Advocates of this position assert it to be true, but offer no evidence whatsoever to back up
their claims. Their claims seem more theological than fact-based.
Using logic, it is clear there is no demonstrable nexus between secondary units and sprawl or
commuting. Demonstrable nexus would require evidence that for every secondary unit built,
some other unit elsewhere wasn't produced or was removed. There is no such evidence. The
regional coordination that would mean building an additional unit in SLO results in not building
Secondary Unit White Paper, Page 4
Richard Schmid[ ^ 1Q 5444247 MO411413 02:08 PM 6 516
an additional unit in the County or Atascadero or Arroyo Grande doesn't exist. Absent such
coordination, one gets both the secondary unit in SLO AND the unit elsewhere, and
commuting and sprawl continue to increase at the same time SLO density increases. (And,
bear in mind: SLO is already one of the densest cities in our region, and the densest
community of consequence in the county.)
B. However, there is a demonstrable nexus working in the opposite direction -- that residential
crowding and the resulting diminished quality of life and housing variety in the family
neighborhoods of SLO are driving people out of the city to quieter, more peaceful
communities. These former residents then commute back to work in the city, exacerbating an
already knotty problem.
C. Finally, there's the effect of converting a substantial amount of family housing into family +
rental housing. Besides the issue of affordability of a home + secondary unit is the issue of
lifestyle and temperament. Most family home ownwers have no interest in being landlords and
taking on the hassles of being a landlord. The combination of increased cost for homes with
secondary units plus the disinterest of most potential homeowners in being landlords would
increase buyer pressure on the remaining family home stock -- those homes without the
potential of a second unit. This crush of interest will drive up the cost of that sector of the
family home market. A policy of promoting secondary units will thus cause cost ripple effects
throughout the city's home market. The probable result will be still more families looking for
housing outside the city, and commuting here to work.
Sprawl and Commuting Conclusions: By diminishing the peace, quiet and open space nature of
family neighborhoods, the promotion of secondary units might well have exactly the opposite
effect sought -- an increase in commuting from outlying communities due to diminished family
neighborhood quality of life and housing prices inflated by the push for more secondary units.
8. Is the city required by state law to allow secondary units in the family housing zone?
A common misconception about AB 1866 is that it denies the city discretion to eliminate a
secondary unit provision from the family housing zone. The law does not prevent such a
prohibition. The law simply states that the city must streamline secondary unit permit procedures
"in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance." Clearly, that means there are zones
where the city may prohibit such units, as well as zones where it permits them.
Some cities -- Pasadena is one example -- prohibit secondary units in their family housing zone
in order to help preserve those neighborhoods and the amenities of lower density living.
(Pasadena allows secondary units in higher density zones.) The city of San Luis Obispo has the
option to do the same. It could, like Pasadena, take its family neighborhoods off the speculative
auction block by allowing secondary units in the other residential zones only. In the SLO R-2
zone, for example, many of the 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots common in the older areas with
such zoning cannot accommodate two units without application of the secondary unit ordinance,
so in a very real sense secondary units would still be permitted in the city with this change. This
is a revision to the ordinance the Council should consider.
Secondary Unit White Paper, Page 5
Richard Schmidt IM 5444247 _i'$04/14/3 02:10 PM D 6/6
9. Has the citizenry been properly noticed of this proposed change to the secondary
dwelling ordinance?
The changes being proposed are radical -- elimination of the owner-occupancy rule, allowing
freestanding secondary units, loosening size restrictions, lowering parking requirements,
allowing secondary units in any residential zone by right, taking steps to promote more and
more secondary units. Taken together, the changes are so great that, particularly in the R-1
zone, the effect is a radical increase in density, effectively converting the R-1 zone to the R-2
zone.
While being presented as a minorlap nning ch e. in fact, this proposal is a rezoninaof the
entire R-1 zone, a doubling of its density from 7 units per net acre to 14 units per net acre.
When zoning is proposed fora change, the city must notify every owner and occupant affected
by the zone change. That has not been done. This is a very serious breach of public process,
and requires the Council either to go back and do the proper zone change notification and
related CEQA work, or to reject all but the.minimal changes needed to conform the current
ordinance to AB 1866.
CONCLUSION: Given all the problems the Planning Commission recommendations will
create for the city and its citizens, the minimal change course --to make the existing
ordinance "1866 proof" and no more -- is the prudent course.
RED FILE
WIE
NG AGENDA
DA ITEM #LL
.�COUNCIL 1 ZCDD DIR
..ET
CAO ;?FIN DIR
fa'ACAO 17.,' FIRE CHIEF
'ATTORNEY Pwa DIR
B-CLERK/ORIG �r POLICE CHF
❑ D P HEADS yJ REC DIR
Z7�?RLOSIL DIR
-._ ❑ HR DIR
Secondary Unit White Paper, Page 6
G RED `.� .
M G AGENDA n
S 1850
ITEM # h�j
BOARD OF SUPERVI96
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, Room 370 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408-2040 • 805.781.5450 W'
r;
SUPERVISOR PEG PINARD
DISTRICT THREE
April 14, 2003 1�01 IwCiL =DD DIR
❑.'CAO -aFIN DIR
p'ACA.O r?-FIRE CHIEF
2'ATTORNMEY C;-PW DIR
Re: Second Units C?CLEHK0�10 C---POLJCECHF
C!rD€? ADg r REC DIR
Cfi-_. (_ . _ [?u%Din
Ll _ p'�iR DIR
Honorable Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council,
I have two comments regarding second units, one general andone more
specific,
1. If the City is to institute "smart growth° principles, new housing will be sited
near transportation, employment and activity centers, and in mixed-use
developments. As an example, the Department of Housing and Community
Development just approved such a statement of"smart growth principles" in the
Housing Element for the City of Pasadena. The approved statement read, "Direct
new development along transit corridors, close to employment and activity
centers; and encourage mixed-use developments'. Our City has these"smart
growth" opportunities and designated annexations as the desired sites for new
housing
If the City Council believes that new housing should follow smart
growth Principles and be directed along transit corridors close to
employment and activity centers, in mixed use developments and in the
City's designated annexations it probably does not make sense to direct
the maximum number of new housing units avvav from these areas and into
the city's established neighborhoods now. Although I understand the
pressure the State is imposing with its timeline for second units, I believe that the
State's timeline should not be a driving factor in molding the city's plans.
I .
APR -1 20u3
�SLp ojr1 CC.UNCIL,
2. As allowed under the State's second unit law, provisions protective of
neighborhoods must continue to be part of the City's Second Unit Ordinance if
the City's established neighborhoods are to be preserved. Specifically,
A Our City's current requirement for"owner occupancy" should be
preserved.
B. Provisions in the"Neighborhood Compatibility' section (2.2.10) of the
LUE should also be incorporated into the City's second unit ordinance.
Although it was omitted from the Staff report, it states,
"2.2.10 Compatible Development Housing within an e)asting
neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All
multifamily development and large group4iving facilities should be compatible
with any nearby, lower density development
A Architectural Character. New buildings should respect eating
buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural
character in terms of size, spacing, and variety.
B. Privacy and Solar Access. New buildings will respect the privacy
and solar access of neighborhood buildings and outdoor areas,
particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook
backyards of adjacent dwellings.°
I very strongly believe that statements embodying these, and other provisions
protective of neighborhoods, must be incorporated into the second unit ordinance
if the City is to truly protect the character of established neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
t
Peg Pinard
ilie OVonnor-SecondaryDwelling Or'�-ance _ Page 1 G
From: <ANCARTER@aol.com>
To: <asettie@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>,
<jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: 4/14/03 4:04PM
Subject: Secondary Dwelling Ordinance
Dear Council Members: RECEIVED
Overall Considerations: APR 14 2003
The challenge that faces you is how to balance the need for more housing in SLO CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo, particularly"affordable" housing, vs. the need to protect
the quality of our R-1 neighborhoods.
You have the option of:
1)Adopting the amended ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission;
2)Adopting the original ordinance developed by staff for consideration by
the Planning Commission;
3) Constructing a compromise ordinance yourself somewhere in between the two;
or
4) Instructing the Planning Commission to develop such a compromise ordinance
for future consideration by Council.
Secondary Units and R-1 Neighborhoods: RED FILE
With respect to state law, I believe you have wide latitude in constructing a MEETING AGENDA
secondary dwelling ordinance as it applies to R-1 neighborhoods: DATE')ITEM #LML
1) 1 believe you have the ability to exempt R-1 neighborhoods should you so
desire. I believe 65852.2.0 provides you with this ability. You could adopt
specific findings that additional rental units are detrimental to the welfare
of R-1 neighborhoods. This would be based on the current problems we have
with rental units in R-1 neighborhoods--specifically noise, parties, public
drunkenness, traffic, parking, upkeep, etc.
2) 1 believe 65852.2A.1.c allows you to limit secondary units in R-1
neighborhoods to lots of at least 9000 square feet should you so desire. I
arrive at 9000 sq. feet by counting the main dwelling as one unit and the
secondary unit(envisioned in the current ordinance as a studio apartment)at
'/2 a unit. 9000 divided by 1-1/2 equals 6000 square feet which is the minimum
current conforming lot size in R-1 neighborhoods.
With respect to owner occupancy, beyond requiring it everywhere vs. allowing
it everywhere, you have the option of requiring it in certain zones(e.g.,
R-1) but not requiring it in others (e.g., R-2, R-3, and R-4).
My Recommendation:
I lay out the possibilities above because there is no one"right'answer as COUNCIL 'E"CDD DIR
to where the balance between more housing and neighborhood quality shouldCAO -t!�IFIN DIR
fall. Nonetheless, here is what I would recommend.
reEITAGAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY Z PW Dip
CLEAK/ORI® ZPCLICE CHF
Owner-Occupancy: MEADS a REC DIR i IR
I believe requiring owner-occupancy for secondary units in R-1 neighborhoods �y� 8'HRDIR
siilie 0 e:onnor-Secondary_Dwelling Or"-ince Page 2
is crucial. Having an owner on site helps control the negative impacts of
rental units with distant landlords.
If you don't require owner-occupancy, you will encourage more owner-occupied
lots in R-1 neighborhoods to convert to rental. Why is that? Because it.
will be primarily landlords, not owner-occupants, who will want to go through
the"hassle"of constructing secondary units. Allowing secondary units
without owner-occupancy adds tremendous value to each lot and developers are
the people who will be most motivated to unlock that value.
(Please note: It is almost certain that allowing detached secondary units
without owner-occupancy will significantly increase the sales price of single
family lots in San Luis Obispo.)
I remind you that Land Use Element 2.15 (Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans)
calls on you to"devise strategies to help stabilize the rental/owner ratio."
Removing the owner-occupancy requirement will do the exact opposite.
If you choose to eliminate owner-occupancy requirements for secondary units
in R-1 neighborhoods, then I think you should require those secondary units
to be affordable to low-income occupants. Currently, this would mean a
maximum rent for the envisioned studio apartment of$606 per month..
(Requiring affordability to moderate income residents is no constraint at all
since that means a maximum studio apartment rent in 2003 of$1296 per month.)
Size of Secondary Unit vs. Size of Lot:
I think the best way to address density concerns is to focus on the size of
the secondary unit So I agree with limiting secondary units to 450 square
feet.
I wouldn't place any constraints on the size of the lot beyond the
requirement that the secondary unit must comply with the currently existing
setback requirements in each zone. (In other words, secondary units on
nonconforming lots would be a theoretic possibility.)
If you choose to allow secondary units of larger than 450 square feet, then I
would add the 30% rule discussed in 65852.2.B.1.e and require lots of 9000
square feet in R-1. (Under this scenano, minimum lot sizes should also be
established for the other zones.)
Parking:
I believe that one additional space requirement for secondary units is
crucial given existing parking issues in our neighborhoods.
If you choose to allow secondary units larger than 450 square feet, then two
additional parking spaces should be required.
Performance Standards:
I don't see any need to create performance standards (height, setbacks, lot
coverage, usable open space, landscaping, etc.) beyond those that already
exist in each residential zone. I also don't see the need for ARC review
given that such review is not currently required when one builds a
single-family dwelling in any residential zone. Ministerial review that the
--_u— _ — .............. ..............
_ _
W Iie.O�onnor-Secondary Dwelling Or-"mance Page Sri
secondary dwelling is compatible with the existing unit on the lot(as
opposed to the neighborhood "standard") should be sufficient.
Summary:
Whatever you decide tomorrow, please act with appropriate concern for our R-1
neighborhoods.
Andrew Carter
CC: <Ipdce@slocity.org>, <khampian@slocity.org>
The City Councillors 612 Stanford Drive
San Luis Obispo City Council San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street CA 93405
San Luis Obispo
Gentlemen, April 14, 2003
We wish to express our concern over developments regarding the
Secondary Dwelling Ordinance. It is a pity, and a matter of
protest for us as residents, that proposed enhanced development
standards are under threat of being abandoned. More ominous
still, the owner-occupancy clause is equally in jeopardy.
It must be self-evident to the City Council that owner occupancy
in the case of secondary dwellings is in the best interest of
everyone: owner, tenant, neighborhood, and San Luis Obispo.
Please consider this matter seriously and vote to maintain the
owner-occupancy requirement.
Yours sincerely,
RED FILE
&Adolfand Genevieve zech MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM 014-3
.R-COUNCIL T r CDD DIR
2-CAO .E!l FIN DIR
;0 ACAO J2 FIRE CHIEF
,ZrATTORNEY Z PW DIR FOR
E(;
.'CLERK/ORIa ;ZPOLICE CHF EIVED
❑SPT HEADS $REC DIR,� -0UTIL DIR 4 ZQQ�
l �7
_ COUNCIL
Rpr 14 03 04: 09p WES CONNER 80R-. 547 1281 p. 1
RECEIVED
7A`.,a UL3AN�$�,�'U 1 PTA�L APR 14 2003
from SLO CITY CLERK
Wes & Dotty Conner
216 Albert Drive, San Luis Obispo,,California, 93405
FAX: 547 1281
to
The Mayor and Members of San Luis Obispo City Council
FAX: 781 7109
As a member of the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, and long time
residents of San Luis Obispo, we encourage you to not increase den si of our
residential zones by approving the Planning Commission's recommendation to
the amend the second dwelling unit ordinances.
Item 3 of the Planning Commission's Recommendations is to remove a major
portion of the enhanced development standards. We ask you to not approve
that
Also, the commission's decision to eliminate the long-standing and vitally
important 'owner occupancy' clause should remain in the ordinances.
Please overturn their recommendations and vote to keep these two issues in
the ordinances.
We feel that it is crucial to retain the health and well-being of our
neighborhoods.
Signed,
. t-�(�. Com• - Date: -
Dotty Conner Wes Conner cArru 1 a \aJ
GCOU— �CIrL DD DIF
7 CAO FIN DIR
RED FILE ;i ACAO .2'FIRE CHIEF
ME ;TI AGENDA Z ATTORNEY -2,PW DIR
21'CLERK/ORIG P POLICE CHF
DAT '5 ITEM # ❑JQEPT HEADS RrREC DIR
P1 21 UTIL DIR
�HR DIR
Richard Schmidt 'r 5444247 MA/14/3 04:21 PM D 112
R � J
RICHARD SCHMIDT
RED FILE 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
ME I�N�G AGENDA
April 14, 2003 DATF #--TO
" VIA FAX RECEIVED
To the Council APR 14 2003
Re: Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance April 15 Agenda SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Council Members:
It has been brought to my attention since sending my previous "white paper" to you on this subject
that something else is afoot:
Namely, that the notion has been floated we so desperately "need housing" that sacrificing family
neighborhoods via cramming in secondary dwellings is a necessary thing.
Obviously, such a position doesn't stand up to serious analysis.
• There are annexation areas, with land use patterns, types and densities yet to be worked out, where
higher densities could be incorporated far more smoothly than they can be by "retrofitting" family
neighborhoods lot by lot.
• There is also the city's mixed use ordinance, adopted a decade ago but not yet implemented by the
city, which could provide nearly a doubling of the city's current number of housing units without
annexing another square inch of land and without building a single secondary unit. As an author of
that ordinance, I remain totally baffled at the city's unwillingness to apply it as was intended -- namely,
as an overlay zone that would produce upper story residential units above new businesses
somethingthat makes far more sense than destroying the most desirable places to live in town.
For your information, I am attaching an analysis I did of the unrealized potential of the mixed use
zone overlay to produce housing in our city. It shows that even by conservative staff estimates of
what's likely (rather than what's possible), we could produce almost 7,000 new housing units simply
by applying this zoning designation.
Please consider that there are much much better alternatives torp oviding hosing than cramming
sect units into family neighborhoods.
COUNCIL Z CDD DIR
Sincerely, B'CAO 2 FIN DIR
ErACAO ;?'FIRE CHIEF
ATTOPINEY PPW DIR
Richard Schmidt 2C ERK/ORIG B POLICE CHF
❑ Df, H 'D rb O'UTIL DIIR
Attached: Housing Potential in Commercial Zones by Applying the�� I e se 0ri I®Iglay
Richard Schmidt 11 5444247 CM411413 04:22 PM D 212
To Housing Task Force
From Richard Schmidt
Housing Potential in Commercial Zones by Applying the Mixed-Use Zone Overlay(Some
Sample Density Scenarios)
Zone Acres' R-1 Overlay R-2 R-3 Allowed "Expected 112
(6 units/acre) (12 u/a) (18u/a) (by zoning)
CC 43 258 516 774 1548 1548
CN 51 306 612 918 612 153
CR 168 1008 2016 3024 6048 4536
CS 465 2790 5580 5580
O 168 1008 2016 3024 2016 504
Total Units Possible 5370 10740 16110 10224 6741
Food for thought: This chart shows the housing potential we're losing by failure to apply the mixed
use zone as an overlay zoning designation to the various commercial districts where mixed-use
housing is feasible. (I've used the "traditional" zoning densities only as a way to translate this
information into familiar conceptions of density.) Obviously, one doesn't gain all this overnight, but as
long as the mixed use zone isn't applied, we're unlikely to get any of it. We've already "lost" hundreds
of potential units by delay (for a decade) in implementing an existing zoning classification.
Worth noting:
1. We could theoretically meet our entire regional housing numbers without annexing another square
inch of land to the city. The statement that "to meet our needs we must annex large new areas and
build to higher density in them" thus doesn't withstand a simple mixed-use analytical test.
2. In theory, we can nearly double the number of housing units without annexations.
3. Infrastructure is already in place in these zones. Development costs to city and developers are
therefore much less than when developing raw land at the urban edge.
4. Given their locations, many commercial districts are efficiently served by public transportation,
which outlying subdivision development cannot be, even if laid out along "new urbanist" principles.
Mixed-use applied to existing commercial areas thus promotes compact urban form as well as
efficient use of already-urbanized land and infrastructure.
5. In practice, it would make sense to apply a mixed-use overlay to the zoning map rather than to an
entire zone classification so that those areas best suited for housing can be selected for this
application. One could then mix-and-match densities from the appropriate column above, for
example, depending upon the specific situation at hand.
' In existing city limits. Future annexations will add more acres to these zones.
2 The "expected"density is from Table 6 in the Housing Element, indicating a best guess about actual density likely.
;Barbara Ehrbar-City Council Public Hea,' on Assembly Bill 1866; TATER 194-02 Page 1
From: Vern Pascal <lazuli777@webtv.net>
To: <behrbar@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: 4/14/03 7:56PM
Subject: City Council Public Hearing on Assembly Bill 1866; TA/ER 194-02
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council members:
Regarding this upcoming agenda on April 15, we are most interested in
voicing our opinion in agreement of changing the local code to conform
to the state mandate on second dwellings on large R1 lots. RECEIVED
Concerning the discussion of items in a recent Planning Commission APR L ;; 2001
hearing, we are very much in favor of a change from the current
requirement of"attached"to either"attached"or"unattached". Also, SLO CITY CLERK
eliminating the Administrative Use Permit, ARC and public hearings on
same. Only that second dwelling needs to meet current building
ordinances and be neighborhood compatible, along with reducing parking
requirements, landscaping and space requirements, and need not be
owner-occupied. Unit could be extended up to 1200 square feet from the
present 450 sq. feet. Maximum coverage on a lot 40 to 50%.
Since we have a large R1 lot on Sierra Way, along with all our
neighbors, in a mixed-use neighborhood, we are sure we'd all like the
opportunity in the future to place a second dwelling on these large lots
to accommodate other members of the family or to provide affordable
rentals to the citizens of San Luis Obispo. We need to meet the needs of
people who live and work in this community. We feel it is much more
preferable to in-fill our city judiciously, rather than ring our
beautiful hills with ever upward and outward sprawl. Of course we wish
to preserve the incredible quality of life in our lovely city, but we
will have to share.
Sincerely, Grace and Vern Pascal
2091 Sierra Way
San Luis Obispo, Ca, 934011
(805 541 4208)
�'COUNC 4E'CDD DIR
.�?CAO ETIFIN DIR
RED FILE 12-ACAO -1 FIRE CHIEF
,OATTORNEY �W DIR
MEET1PJG AGENDA ,2 CLERK/ORIG ZPOLJCE CHF
•� ITEM # �, ❑ DEPT HEADS , aREC,DIR
DAT _2E .�'wrn"rw .ri. UTIL DIR
T-TrjY � f HR DIR
April 13, 2003 RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DA'M� ITEM #�3
Mayor Dave Romero
It is with great concern that I have received information about
the planning commission deciding to make changes in the proposed
enhanced developement standards. The idea of having alot of
occupants (mainly students) taking over our neighborhoods; stinks.I
feel very strongly , if people are going to buy homes here, and fill
them with students, they should have room for themselves and live
there to control the unruliness, so we neighbors could live our lives
in peace When I bought my home in this neighborhood some 30
years ago, it was one of the nicests, quietest, cleanest neighborhoods
in SLO. But as elderly people passed on, real estate started moving
in, getting big prices for homes and buyers making big bucks by
filling homes up with students. Our neighborhood has just
deteriorated.
We have yards that look like automotive garages . When garage
doors are open there are cars inside that appear they are being
repaired. Flat bed trailer parked on the street for days at a time,
appears to be used to haul in cars. Kris Kar apartments are in our
neighborhood, we.all know the reputation it has. There are two
newer homes in the area, I believe 5 and 6 bedrooms. They are full
of students. I understand one is owned by a students parents.. Now
that is a good case, where a parent should live in, but I'm sure they
live many miles away. There is a home two doors from me, the
students are quiet, but they feel they should not park in their own
carport or driveway, but they feel its easier to park in front of the
neighbors homes, too much trouble having to have roommates move
their cars, so they can get out. So neighbors cannot park in front of
their own residences.. Its real convenient to the bus stop, so cars
remain parked for many days , so we, or our company have to find a
place to park, blocks away. Then when their company starts
arriving, its another story.
No, don't allow more students taking over homes, lets have
parents there to control their kids, let them be there to see what
they are getting paid for. Let them be there to help us neighbors
enjoy our lives and our homes we bought years ago, thinking we had
the perfect neighborhood.
RECEIVED
APR 1 200
SLO CIT`( COUNCIL
Lets get a group made up that can go into homes and count
occupants.. And check conditions that students have to live in and
pay for.. Check to see if there is adequate parking..
Yes on "owner occupancy clause" Owners MUST live in either
the primary or the secondary unit..
Sincerely, Dolores Williams
1680 Hillcrest Place,
San Luis Obispo, Ca.
rdCOUNCIL 7 CDD DIR
,0"CAO 'FIN DIR
,0 ACAO Z'FIRE CHIEF
2'AT 0RNEY 2/PW DIR
ZrCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
❑ D P HEADS _ REC DIR
� 1t'UTIL DIR
ZHR DIR
`Julie O'Connor Input Re: Revisions to �.Secondary Dwelling Ordinance _ _ _ Page 1
From: macsar<macsar99@earthlin k.net>
To: Dave Romero<drbmero@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland <cmulholland@slocity.org>,
John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, Ken Schwartz<kschwartz@slocity.org>, Alan Settle
<asettle@s locity.org>
Date: 4/15/03 12:47PM
Subject: Input Re: Revisions to SLO Secondary Dwelling Ordinance
Mayor, Councilmembers: RECEIVED
RQN has been informed that there is a bill being considered in the APR 1- 5 2003
State legislature that remove any"owneroccupied" restrictions
that California cities may have imposed. We have, also, been informed SLO CITY CLERK
that this is a reason for SLO to remove it from our city ordinance. We
strongly disagree.
Hundreds of bills are presented at the State legislature. Many are
stalled in committee. Of those that go to the legislature for vote,
many are not passed. This bill has not even cleared the committee
process.
It is presumptive to assume we should delete our own owner-occupied
provision based on what the State legislature may or may not do. Plus .
. . removing the owner-occupied restriction from SLO's ordinance is not
good for the character of our city. It would open the door even further
to real estate speculation, ultimately turning R-1 neighborhoods into
R-2, raising property values, and further increasing the cost of
housing.
I will be very disappointed if you allow the"owner-occupied"
provision to be removed from our city's ordinance.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
RQN Board Member
CC: <Lee@earthlink.net>, <Price@earthlink.net>, <Iprice@slocity.org>
RED FILE
0 COUNCIL 'CDD DIR
MEETING AGENDA ICAO FIN DIR
JZ ACAO Fd FIRE-CHIEF
DATEAdDITEM #1iL Jn ATTORNEY Z PW DIR
2 CLERK/ORIG d POLICE CHF
❑ DD PT HEADS
REGDIR
Ja Z!� UTIL DIR
2rHR DIR
O O
RECEIVED
APR 16 200"I Neighborhoods North of Foothill
SLO CITY CLERK A California Public Benefit Corporation
P.O.Boa 13023,San Luis Obispo,Ca 93406
(805)542-9554
April 15, 2003
Honorable David Romero, Mayor
Members of the City Council RED FILE
City of San Luis Obispo MEET NG AGENDA
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 DA ITEM #2, ! '
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: By e-mail
The Neighborhoods North of Foothill (NNOF) is a community organization dedicated to
maintaining the quality of life for residents in the City of San Luis Obispo. NNOF is
very concerned about the proposed amendments to the ordinance on Secondary Dwelling
Units before the City Council, specifically the elimination of the"owner-occupancy"
requirement.
The stated purpose of the amendment as found in Section 17.21.010 paragraph D: "to
expand housing opportunities for low income and moderate-income elderly house-
holds...to provide livable housing at lower cost while providing greater security,
companionship and family support for the occupant."will not be served by eliminating
the owner-occupancy requirement. An individual, regardless of age, living in one of the
units with strangers living in the other can hardly be assured of benign oversight. On the
other hand, if one of the units has to be occupied by an owner related to an elderly or
other family member residing in the other unit there will be a family member nearby
more likely to provide that"security, companionship and family support."
We live in neighborhoods that have experienced an accelerating conversion-of single
family homes into rental properties. While some of the rental owners are local
individuals, many others are investors who live far from San Luis Obispo. Now, instead
of homes occupied by families we have street after street where large numbers of houses
are occupied by five (or more) young adults. With this transition in living patterns come
the attendant problems of parking,noise, illegal conversions, antisocial behavior, etc.
The idea that additional dwellings could beaddedto these properties with no constraint
and no real oversight as to their occupancy is very disturbing. Such an action will not
only have a negative impact on the neighborhoods,but it will not promote the purpose of
the legislation.
We urge you to reject the amendment as worded and reinstate the owner-occupancy
requirement.
Sincerely yours, , Olt
if CAO 'ffIC�DD DIR
Joan Lynch, President ff ACAO /2TFIN DIR
PSATTORNEY 2rFIRE CHIEF
1;'CLERK/CRIG Z'PW DIR
PT HEADS POLICE CHF
REC DIR
Z'UTIL DIR
�— —�
Allen Settle-Owner Occupancy Page-1j
From: <Stubsontoo@aol.com>
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 14, 2003 9:05 PM
Subject: Owner Occupancy
Allowing owners to not live on the property with secondary units is just
asking for lower quality neighborhoods. Please do not support the planning
commission recommendation.
Thank you
Mendi Stubson
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
-N-"'I
DATE- TEM #-113
RECEIVED
,APR 16 200:1
SLO CITY CLERK
;,?'COUNCIL TCDD DIR
ICAO 4 FIN DIR
ACAOE5 FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY �2 PW DIR
CLERKIORIG �2 POLICE CHF
jUTILetin Ins
D
PT HEA S ?REC DIR
l Allen Settle-Secondary Dwellings Page 1
From: "Eugene D. Fabricius" <efabrici@polymai1.cpunix.calpoly.edu>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 14, 2003 1:33 PM
Subject: Secondary Dwellings
Mayor Romero,
Please do NOT eliminate the requirement for owner occupancy in secondary
dwellings in San Luis Obispo.
Thank you,
Eugene Fabricius
575 Stanford Drive
SLO
CC: <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>,
<kschwartz@slocity.org>
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA COL), CIL -P-7-CDD DiR-
IR
DATE ITEM #� C�CA0 FIN CACAO L"FIRE CHIEF
rd ATTORNEY PW DIR
�-el'CLERK/ORIG �POLJCE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 2"REC DIR
L� UTIL DIR
FhJR DIR
RECEIVED
APR 15 20031
SLO CITY CLERK
Allen Settle-Secondary Dwelling_Ordin�� _ Page 1
From: Joan Collier<slojoco@charter.net>
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 14, 2003 11:11 AM RECEIVED
Subject: Secondary Dwelling Ordinance
Dear Council Member." APR 15 200:
1 would like you to know that I support the RQN board's position on the SLO CITY CLERK
Secondary Dwelling Ordinance. I believe the"owner occupancy" protection is
essential.
Sincerely,
Joan Collier
San Luis Drive Neighborhood
"C6UINCIL
yZ CAO CDD DIRE
�Z ACAO ?'FIN DIR
.Z7^ATTORNEY ' FIRE CHIEF
f2rCLERK/ORIG fZPW DIR
P HEADS u POCICD RCHF
�R
L UTIL DIR
RED FIL-
ING p�GENDA
MEEt ITEM#
DAT '
j_Allen Settle-(no subject) _ Page 1
From: <Tap88834@aol.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>,
<asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>
Date: Sun, Apr 13, 2003 7:58 PM
Subject: (no subject)
OWNER-OCCUPANCY CLAUSE
After Teaming that the Planning Commission approved that the
"owner-occupancy clause"should be eliminated, we felt that as active RQN El
members and our neighbors fully DISAGREE.
This will create multiple dwellings in an R-1 zoning. These homes with"Granny units"will now become duplexes and/or two homes on a single lot.
Our private R-1 residential neighborhoods will become R-2 zoning as it S
will no longer require the owner to live on the premises. This will create a
noise and parking problem, also, it will encourage student occupancy. Why
should we have R-1 zoning if you approve this.
We are a quite and peaceful neighborhood and would like to see it
continued as such. This will not happen if the Council approves this
measure. We and others have these units in our neighborhoods, which are
presently properly controlled.
Apparently none of the Planning Commission members are affected by
multiple dwellings in their areas.
PLEASE, WE URGE THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THANKS,
Dick and Suzette Caddy, 134 LaEntrada Ave., SLO, CA
Pat&Grace Dempsey, 133, LaEntrada Ave., SLO, CA
Dottie Pate, 127 LaEntrada Ave. SLO, CA
Rudy and Diane Del Rio, 243 Hermosa Way, SLO, CA
RED FILE
mF.ETING AGENDA "COUNCIL CDD DIR
DATE. 'TEM # 2"ATTORNEY FIN DIR
fcrFIRE CHIEF
CLERWORIG Zr PW DIR
I�
no EPT HEADS `E POLICE CHF
�'REC DIR
Z-UTIL DIR
_-'HR DIR
Allen Settle-granny units Page 1 J
From: "Paul Bonjour' <paulbonjour@msn.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 12, 2003 11:54 AM
Subject: granny units
Dear mayor and council members, I think you have already ruined our neighborhoods enough with poly
students with out adding more units in our neighborhoods. Paul Bonjour Realtor"
CC: <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>,
<kswartz@slocity.org>
RECEIVED
APR 15 2003
SLO CITY CLERK
RED FILE
- MEETING AGENDA ��
DATE ITEM #P]±.-5 �r�"—�'OUNCIL DIR
i"CAO FIN DIR
(CACAO FIRE CHIEF
CirATTORNEY PW DIR
ZCLERKIORIG POLICE CHF
Cc] D T HEADS IZ REC DIR
ZUTIL DIR
HR DIR _
Allen Settle- RE:April 15, 2003 Agenda.;` i; Secondary Dwelling (Granny Flat) Ordir,--^,e Page 1
From: "Elaine Genasci" <egenasci@charter.net>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>,
<kschwartz@slocity.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 12, 2003 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: April 15, 2003 Agenda item; Secondary Dwelling (Granny Flat) Ordinance
SLO City Council Members:
I am very taken aback by the actions of the Planning Commission to decide to
remove the "owner occupancy clause".
The"owner occupancy clause"and the"enhanced property development
standards" are crucial to the health and well-being of our neighborhoods and
must be maintained in the revised Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Please insure that our lovely city continue to remain a wonderful place to
live and do not eliminate the"owner occupancy clause and the enhanced
property development standards" in the SLO City ordnance at the City Council
Meeting on April 15, 2003.
Sincerely,
Brandy Relis RECEIVED
2936 Rockview Place
SLO, CA 93401 APR 15 2003
545-9385
SLO CITY CLERK
�, COUNCIL CDD DIR
Z CAO 'FIN DIR
Z ACAO 7FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY $PW DIR
PrCLERK/ORIG 2-POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS .'REC DIR
2il1TIL DIR
j� HR DIP, '
RED FILE
ME ING AGENDA
DATE%dITEM #2143
Allen Settle-Secondary DwellingOrdinar
From: "John Sherry" <jes@jesherry.com>
To: <asettle@slocity.org> Es
ECEIVED
Date: Sat, Apr 12, 2003 5:41 PM
Subject: Secondary Dwelling Ordinance PR 15 2003
Dear Mr. Settle, CITY CLERK
As a homeowner in San Luis Obispo I am very concerned about the quality of
this city's neighborhoods. I view the neighborhoods of San Luis Obispo as
representing the true character of this town. Its not the tourist
attractions, its not the new street signs. It the feeling we all get as
we drive through the neighborhoods to and from our homes and quality of life
we enjoy while living in each of our own neighborhoods.
The omission of the Owner occupancy clause and enhanced property development
standards from the ordinance you are voting on is alarming to say the least.
Those of us living in the city neighborhoods are fighting for our lives
against investor owned rental houses. You only need to drive down any street
and you can spot the student rentals: weed ridden uncut front lawns, four or
five pickup trucks parked in front, trash and litter, etc. Often this is
right in between two perfectly maintained homeowner occupied homes. And that
is just the visual effect. The degradation of daily quality of life is
something only those homeowners know. I know, as my 12 year old daughter has
found the student's vomit in our front yard, neighbors have seen the boys
urinating in their bushes, we have picked up the beer bottles...and this is
an otherwise nice neighborhood!
The point of my ranting is that, if anything, the City Council needs to be
imposing more restrictions, not easing the precious few we have! Ask
yourself this: when the neighborhoods are destroyed, where are we going to
live?
Thank you for your consideration.
John Sherry
635 Stanford Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA
btw: In the last year the Westside of SLO has seen a Boy Scout shop turn
into a tattoo parlor and an ice cream shop turn into a"smoke shop". Does it
reflect a change in the demographics of the neighbors on this side of town
or is it a coincidence?
j�COUNCIL TCDD DIR
dFIN DIR
J. E. Sherry Company ACA00 Z:i FIRE CHIEF
Toll Free: 800-809-0341 R"ATTORNEY !Z PW DIR
Local: 805-544-3839 �2'CLERKIORIG 2 POLICE CHF
Fax: 805-544-3825 ❑ DE T HEADSTc!REC DIR
http://www.jesherry.com RED FILE 17 ye 6%DIR
jes@jesherry.com �HR DIR
-----.....,.. MEETING AGENDA -- -
DATE ITEM # .
;_Allen Settle-Secondary Dwellings Page_1.1
From: <JHCambrian@aol.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>
Date: Sun, Apr 13, 2003 10:35 AM
Subject: Secondary Dwellings RECEIVED
I believe it is imperative that you include the"Owner-Occupancy"clause and APR 15 2003
the"Enhanced Property Development Standards"clause in your Secondary
Dwelling (Granny Flat) Ordinance. This could, in effect, create rental units SLO CITY CLERK
in residential areas without regards to existing property standards. In
addition, more parking would be required if two rental units were permitted
per lot(assuming up to five unrelated persons could be renters per unit).
The clauses are"crucial to the health and well-being of our neighborhoods
and must be maintained in the revised Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance."
San Luis Obispo homeowner,
Judith Collins
CC: <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <aset le@slocity.org>,
<kschwariz@slocity.org>
RED FILE
MEErING AGENDA
DA I ITEM 0
C'OUN�PI{k,{ CDD DIR
JLfI T�
CIL
CAO ZFIN DIR
FA
Z ACAO RECHIEF
!-ATTORNEY IZ PW DIR
2 CLERKIORIG i-POLICE CHF
❑ DPT HEADS ei REC 01R
N (l� 2 UTIL DIR
(/� 2!HR DIR