HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-22-2017 PC Correspondence - Item P1 (Montgomery, V.) Meeting: 1, li
From: Montgomery, Victor< stern: (7
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 11:17 PM RECEIVED
To: Advisory Bodies CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Subject: PC communication
FEB 21 2017
Members of the Planning Commission; I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I have reviewed the staff report on Accessory Dwelling Units. I have also reviewed the State law that recently became effective.
The intent of the State law with regard to the allowable size of an Accessory Dwelling unit is clearly expressed - 50% of the size
of the primary Dwelling unit up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet.
The City of San Luis Obispo is consistently identified as one of the least affordable housing markets in the State of California -
and the United States! Housing costs and lack of housing units have become such important issues that the State has at long
last taken action on a program to make accessory units easier to accomplish. They created a tool to try and create housing
units in California. They have gone so far as to mandatorily clear away common road blocks used by those individuals and
communities that oppose more housing and more affordable housing. They have made permits for accessory units ministerial,
they made accommodation for parking, setbacks, unit size, local Lot coverage requirements, etc. all in an effort to encourage
this form of housing.
Imagine my surprise when I read the Planning Commission staff report for the 2/22/2017 meeting and saw that contrary to the
clearly stated intent of State law to facilitate this type of housing staff is recommending a cap on Accessory Dwelling units at a
mere 450 square feet. Why? Almost no rationale is given to support this recommendation. Despite years of lip service to the
need for affordable housing in SLO, years of Housing Element identification of the need for more housing (of all types and sizes)
and years of talking about solutions staff now recommends a meager half measure. Again, why? What is the magic to 450
square feet? Why not 600sf, or 800sf? If lack of housing is truly the problem our community has identified time and time again
why not follow the intent and unit size formula laid out in the State law?
I urge the Planning Commission to reject the staff recommended cap of 450sf.
I hope that with this new State mandate in place you will seize the opportunity to make a difference in our housing issue, to act
on a tool provided to us and adopt a more reasonable size limit consistent with the intent of State law.
Thank you for your attention.
Victor Montgomery
Sent from my iPad