HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/2018 Item 2, Orvis
Sheffield, Alexis
From:Sierra Orvis <sierra.orvis@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Planning Commission - 10/10/18 Item 2 (ADUs)
Dear City of SLO Planning Commission
My name is Sierra Layous and I own and live in a small single family home in an R-3 area of SLO. My husband
and I both work full time in SLO, and have a 2 year old daughter, and another baby on the way early next year.
I am writing you to voice my support for the zoning amendment to remove the owner occupancy covenant
requirement for ADU's in R-3 and R-4 areas.
There are several justifications to support the zoning amendment. The benefits and drawbacks of owner-
occupancy covenants are different in the lower-density versus higher-density areas. The concerns raised in
support of the owner occupancy requirements deal largely with issues in the low density R-1 and R-2 areas of
San Luis Obispo. Neighbors are concerned about the impacts higher densities and more rentals will have on
the surrounding neighborhoods. R-3 and R-4 areas are, by zoning, designated to have a higher density. Being
high density subsequently means the areas are predominantly rentals. The neighborhood benefits of owner-
occupancy are significantly reduced in higher-density, largely rental, areas. Alternatively, while essentially
impossible to simply quantify, the reduction in home value (and, at times, the ability to sell at all) is much more
significant in higher density areas.
Owner-occupancy is likely a non-starter for many in these areas, including my husband and myself. We have
every intention of continuing to live on our property for the foreseeable future. However, the uncertainties and
constraints that an owner-occupancy covenant places on our property are significant. Pursuing an additional
unit via the multi-family route comes at a significant cost, in the neighborhood of an additional $30,000. That is
obviously a huge roadblock for families trying to live and work here.
State laws currently allow cities to require ADU applicants to be owner occupants (GOV 65852.2(a)(6)).
Separately, the laws allow cities to require properties with ADUs be owner-occupied in perpetuity (covenants)
(GOV 65852.2(e)). These two options obviously have very different intents. In the event that you may wish to
ensure the "benefits" of the ADU option be used solely by residents (rather than developers), I hope that you
will consider recommending removing the owner-occupancy covenant requirement from high density R-3 and
R-4 areas, and instead opting for requiring applicants to be owner-occupants. From my own experience, I
believe that an owner-occupant will design and build a higher quality unit that they would want to live in or next
to, rather than strictly looking at the unit as a business decision.
The portion of the city that is R-3 and R-4 is relatively low. The lots within those areas that currently contain
single family residences (as opposed to multi-family units/apartments/condos/etc) and would qualify to build
ADUs are few and far between. Therefore, the impact that this change would have on the city as a whole
would be relatively small. However, it would provide a pathway for infill housing that would otherwise likely
continue to be under-utilized lots. This is certainly the case with my property.
If there are any questions I can answer, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time and
consideration,
Sierra
1