HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2001, 4 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW UNAUTHORIZED BEDROOM CONVERSIONS TO RE council. %&°u D�
j acEnda nEpout !1¢m Neer�A.,
I
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirectC91111
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A REQUEST
TO ALLOW UNAUTHORIZED BEDROOM CONVERSIONS TO
REMAIN (OTHER 0 33-01; 1110 IRIS STREET).
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
As acted on by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2001, adopt Draft Resolution A
(Attachment 2), denying the appeal, based on findings, and subject to a condition.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The appellant, Michael Demaree, owns a small six-unit apartment project located on Iris Street
on the other side of the tracks from the railroad station. Work was done without a building permit
or City approval on five of the six units to create two-bedroom units where one-bedroom units
were originally approved by adding walls down the centers of the original bedrooms. The City
first became aware of the issue when a neighbor filed a complaint.
The zoning regulations allow a maximum density of 4.28 units for this site. The approved
project density, which allowed 6 one-bedroom units to be developed, or a total of 3.96 density
units, is consistent with the regulations. However, the modified density, with five two-bedroom
units and one 1-bedroom unit, increased the project density to 5.66 units, in excess of the
maximum allowed density of 4.28 units. Therefore, none of the converted units could remain
two-bedroom units and comply with density standards.
In conclusion, the modified units are in violation of the City's density standards and related
property development standards, such as parking, which are tied to the number of units in a
project and their type, as defined by number of bedrooms. The modified units are also in
violation of use permit conditions approved in 1977 with original plans for the project, which
limited units to one-bedroom each and prohibited any further division of these bedrooms.
Planning Commission's Action
On April 11, 2001, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Community
Development Director's denial of a request to allow unauthorized bedroom conversions to
remain, in violation of City density standards. The Director had previously provided a written
determination on the applicability of the regulations under Section 17.02.040 of the zoning
Council Agenda Report—Demaree Appeal(Other O 33-01; 1110 Iris Street)
Page 2
regulations at the appellants' request (attached to PC report — Attachment 10). The Planning
Commission was instructed that the issue before them was to determine whether the presented
facts constituted a violation of the zoning regulations, and to act accordingly on the appeal.
On a 6-0-1 vote (Cornmr. Cooper absent), the Commission denied the appeal, upholding the
Community Development Director's action, which denied the request to allow five one-bedroom
apartment units to remain converted to two-bedroom apartments, based on findings, and subject
to the following condition (Attachment 6):
1. The applicant shall submit plans to the Building Division and obtain a building
permit to remove the added wall and door down the center of the upper floor of
five of the units to create conforming one-bedroom apartments by May 11, 2001.
The Commission felt that refinements may be needed to the City's existing density regulations,
but was persuaded that the modifications made to the units violated the adopted standards. The
appellant Michael Demaree spoke noting how well the property was maintained, how units are
typically rented by singles or couples, and mentioning how Uniform Housing Code occupancy
limits could be viewed to apply. He urged the Commission to uphold his appeal. David Jeffrey.
supported the staff s recommendation and brought up parking and maintenance concerns. Paul
Hancock, resident of the apartment complex, noted that it was a good place to live.
Appeal Filed
On April 23, 2001, the appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action
(Attachment 3). His appeal statement indicated that he was not appealing the facts included in
staff s analysis, or the Planning Commission's conclusions on his appeal related to those facts
Instead, he indicates that the Commission failed to address the true intent of the City's density
regulations with its action, and that he believes that changes should be made to the regulations.
Because of the seemingly contradictory components of his appeal statement, staff prepared a
letter to the appellant to clarify the intent of his appeal (Attachment 4).
The appellant's clarification statement (Attachment 5) suggests that there is a need for an
"equitable limitation on the number of people residing in a given area", and notes that the City's
regulations limit the number of units in a given area, rather than density. His appeal statement
goes on to recommend- some specific changes to the present density regulations.
Response to Appeal
Staff sees no reason to modify the City's zoning regulations in response to this appeal. The
current method of calculating density was in effect at the time that the project was originally
approved, and it has been operating fairly effectively since that time. More importantly, the
subject issue of this appeal is not whether shortcomings exist with the current density
regulations. The issue is whether or not the altered units are in violation of the existing density
standards. The Planning Commission when presented with the project facts, which the appellant
�-a
1
Council Agenda Report—Demaree Appeal(Other O 33-01; 1110 Iris Street)
Page 3
himself does not contest, agreed that the modified units were indeed in violation of City density
standards. The Commission further directed that permits be obtained expeditiously to correct the
violations.
The adopted density standards prevail with the review of whether a violation exists at the site.
The Council in its consideration of the appeal cannot arbitrarily suspend the application of
adopted code on individual properties. Therefore, as was presented to the Planning Commission,
the Council's purview with the consideration of this appeal is very limited. That is the reason
that the options offered the Council in the Alternatives section do not include upholding the
appeal.
Summary
The Planning Commission unanimously concluded that the appeal should be denied for the
following main reasons:
1. The changes to the subject units were made without City approval or permits;
2. The modifications to the units are inconsistent with adopted City regulations;
3. The modifications to the units are inconsistent with the originally approved use permit for
the project; and
4. Approval of this appeal would set an undesirable precedent, which ,would hamper the
City's enforcement efforts.
When the original use permit for the project was reviewed in 1977, the Planning Commission at
that time recognized that the large sizes of the proposed bedrooms lent themselves to possible
future modifications. For that reason, a specific condition was added that prohibited any further
partitions of the upstairs bedroom, permanent or temporary (Attachment 11). This is noted here
to point out that the potential density issue with the units at this particular site is one that had
been flagged as a potential problem early on.
FISCAL IMPACT
This type of appeal is a fairly unusual situation, as it is not specifically related to a current
development proposal. Therefore, all .of staff's time working on reports,. writing letters, and
attending hearings related to this matter has been paid for through the general fund, rather than
any part of costs being partially reimbursed through development or appeal fees.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the appeal, adopting Resolution A (Attachment 2), but suggest that the appellant either
file an application for either a zone change to a higher residential zoning category, or pursue
other text amendments to the zoning regulations,to allow more bedrooms at the site.
q-3
I l
Council Agenda Report—Demaree Appeal(Other O 33-01; 1110 Iris Street)
Page 4
As has been previously pointed out, the Council at this time does not have the discretion to
uphold the appeal since there is no disagreement that the facts indicate that the altered units
are in violation of the existing density standards and the approved use permit for the
property. The applicant has the option of pursuing a zone change to a higher residential
zoning category that would allow 5.66 units. For example, R-3 zoning would allow a
maximum of 6.48 units at the site. Two potential problems with this option are that a spot
zoning would be created since the surrounding blocks of property are zoned R-2 or R-2-S,
and the applicant would have to provide additional parking.
The other option would be to propose changes to the actual text of the zoning-regulations to
look at either different maximum allowed densities for zoning categories or alternative
methods of defining units. Modifications to the allowed densities would also require a
general plan amendment. Alternative density definitions would apply Citywide and have.the
potential to affect all new multi family residential projects, depending on the specific nature
of the amendment proposals.
2. Continue action with direction to staff and the appellant.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map& plans
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution A (deny appeal; uphold Planning Commission's action)
Attachment 3: Appeal to City Council received April 23, 2001
Attachment 4: Letter from Pam Ricci to Mr. Demaree requesting clarification of appeal
intent dated 4-26-01
Attachment 5: Response letter from Mr. Demaree to Pam Ricci dated 5-2-01 clarifying
appeal intent I
Attachment 6: Planning Commission follow-up letter& Resolution No. 5309-01
Attachment 7: Letter from Mr. Demaree to Don Wright and response letter
Attachment 8: Draft 4-11-01 Planning Commission minutes
Attachment 9: Handout from Mr. Demaree presented to the Commission on 4-11-01
Attachment 10: 4-11-01 Planning Commission staff report& attachments
Attachment 11: Original Planning Commission Resolution No. 1165-77 approving project
(poor quality original)
Attachment 12: Letter from Cydney Holcomb of RQN supporting denial of the appeal
L:\Use\O 33-01 (Council Agenda Report)
iAttachment 1
9
a
Vicinity Map 1110 IRIS
;�-y 0 3301 4_5-
ATTACWENT
UtQ lT FLO6i�,' PLANS
I
20 go i
—
a \V i ¢�
21oi }}I!���� � Gt"' \� �� .�� IN � cJ- �y��x� $�•cv pal-0n g,r
3�
wf .!�1� � •+�
n Y✓J a. � � .il i tri �-(�' /y�C•I i -T.J C'-`1 •a •`Y-
e
C .�i�.<3:1�.'^„ •;�<_�.,a.,r ��
oviv el
ti[,.
IV—
ea
/
If 0
FLC:or--,
1 I
J ) ATTACHMENT =
SITE PLAN
0
17,
/..
41
AKMAt
11-7�Dv,x , . �•. �` �- ,�, cora.
J:.i'. "Z2vhc¢T v f'.-.-.. . ..
of
ATTACHMENT;
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO DENY THE REQUEST
TO ALLOW UNAUTHORIZED BEDROOM CONVERSIONS TO REMAIN,
IN VIOLATION OF CITY DENISTY STANDARDS,
AT 1110 IRIS STREET (OTHER O 33-01)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 11, 2001,
and denied the request, based on findings, and with conditions; and
WHEREAS, Michael S. Demaree, 4 Pinewood, Irvine, California, 92604, filed an appeal
of the Planning Commission's action on April 23, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 5, 2001, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the Planning
Commission's action of April 11, 2001, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the appeal request
(Other O 33-01), the appellant's statements, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes
the following findings:
1. Allowing the five two-bedroom units at the site to remain results in an overall project
density of 5.66 units. This is in direct violation of the City's zoning regulations (Section
17.16.010), which allow 4.28 units at the site (0.36 acre x 12 units/acre =4.28 units).
2. Allowing the five two-bedroom units at the site to remain would constitute a grant of
special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning, given that other development projects in the immediate area
have been required to maintain their approved number of bedrooms, consistent with density
standards.
3. The five one-bedroom units as shown on the originally approved plans were illegally
converted to two-bedroom units without a building permit and City approval.
4. As included in Condition No. 8 of Use Permit U0637, the original Planning Commission
use permit approving the project in 1977,.all dwelling units at the site were limited to one
bedroom each, and no partitions, permanent or temporary, were allowed to divide
approved one-bedroom space into two spaces or bedrooms.
e
ATTACHMENT,
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Action - Appeal Denied. The appeal of the Planning Commission is
hereby denied. Therefore, the Commission's action to deny the request to allow unauthorized
bedroom conversions to remain, in violation of City density standards, is upheld, subject to the
following condition:
1. The applicant shall submit plans to the Building Division and obtain a building permit to
remove the added wall and door down the center of the upper floor of five of the units to
create conforming one-bedroom apartments, as previously 'directed by Community
Development Department staff and the Planning Commission.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 5`h day of June, 2001.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:.
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED:
<�)J//tuf
ty omey/ffre . Jo ensen
Res\Other 0 33-01 (Draft Resolution A)
ATTACHMENT
RECEIVED
APR 2 3 2001
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SLO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as specified in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (attached), the undersigned hereby appeals the
decision of
rendered on /76-10(3 �� , which consisted of the
following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal.
Use additional sheets
saas�needed.)
of
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
The appellant agrees to appear and/or send a representative to appear on his/her
behalf.
(Signature of Appellant)
Name/Title Mailing Address and Zip Code
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address and Zip Code
This item is hereby calendared for
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
City C (original)
(301) ,�-l�
- ATTACHMENT
VI O I1 11 1 5 O N - M A. 1; 1: H: li'IJ S 11
U LS::- 1'�u:;
11'INI-A,0 tlt- IK\l:\I: �.\ 4_'i.u6- T1i1.71'�.E::.I.I1:t_ - F.\�: '17'�.
11 it�luu�l �. 1)cntnrt•r. riul \euu•Lu� �'I. llrnian�r,.
�I'VES CITY OF
SAN lUls OBISp p
Pamela Ricci, AICP APR 2 J 2001
Planning Division
Community Development Department COMMUNITY DTV
990 PaCity of lm San treet Obispo f(OPMENT
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Tel: 805.781.7168 Fax 805.781.7173
April 19, 2001
REF: 1104-1110 Iris, Room divisions in single bedroom units.
Dear Ms. Ricci:
Thank you so much for sending me the drawings used as part of your staff report. I felt that your
report was excellent,factual in every way. Your helpfulness throughout this process has been
quite appreciated.
I wanted to let you know that we are appealing the resolution of the Planning Commission. Our
appeal is not because we think you were incorrect, but rather because the Commission felt they
could not address our question concerning the criterion for density regulation. Presently, that
criterion is"number of bedrooms", and a more effective and less misleading criterion such as
"square feet of sleeping areas with closets" should be considered. I have attached a copy of our
appeal.
As we continue with the process in our attempt to get this situation properly resolved, we are
also going to apply for the building permits needed to remove the non-supporting partitions. As
you and I discussed after the meeting, I will plan to remove each partition as each unit becomes
vacant. This means no disruption for the present tenant, construction done while vacant, and
ready in the original configuration for the next tenant. Since Mr. Wright agreed that the present
occupancy in fact does not impact density and does not present any safety hazards, I would
expect no objection to this-as tenants change" approach.
Can you tell me to whom 1 should address such a request? Once again I ask for your help which
is so much appreciated. I will wait for your reply before continuing.
Cordially,
Michael S. Demaree
MSD: mal
cc: Mr. Don Wright
4-ll
ATTACHMENT,
S
M Oii R-1 s o .,,\f - D E U A. 11 U, TIS U ri,
It'1A 3. 1995
.1 111NEV 00D- 110 INE C 3 92601 Wt2— FAX 9to—S.S1.6P,5., RECEIVED
N1. De-111arec, APR 2 3 2001
CO-71,11USTEIVS
The City Clerk SLO CITY CLERK
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
April 18, 2001
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 5309-01
1. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant appreciates the very complete and accurate
Planning Staff report prepared by Ms. Ricci.
2. In all aspects of this appeal, the appellant declares full recognition and support for the city's right and
duty to control the density of population within the city both in new and existing structures.
3. The original appeal of the denial of appellant's request to allow division of single bedrooms into two
bedrooms was based on the fact that the present rules and regulations do not adequately address
the question of"density", and we should therefore look towards the"intent"of the density regulations.
4. The Planning Commission did not feel empowered to consider"intent. In the words of the Chairman
of the Planning Commission at the close of the appeal, by appellant's recollection, "It is clear that the
rules and regulations governing density are seriously flawed, but they are all we have so we must
abide by them."
5. We live in a system where flaws can and should be remedied.
6. The purpose of this appeal is to encourage the City Council to change the basis of the density
regulations from "units determined by the number of bedrooms*to"units determined by the total
square footage designated for sleeping purposes".
7. Example of density based on "units determined by number of bedrooms" on R-2 land at 12 units per
acre:
a. A single large bedroom of say 12'x 25', which under the Uniform Housing Code could
sleep five people, counts as.66 unit.
b. Two small bedrooms of say 12 x 12'6*each, which under the Uniform Housing Code could
sleep a total of five people, counts as I unit.
c. Therefore, using single large bedrooms(.66 units)there could be 18 dwellings per acre,
each with nine people,for a density total of 90 people per acre.
d. Or, using two small bedrooms (I unit)there could be 12 dwellings per acre, each with five
people, for a density total of 60 people per acre.
ATTACHMENT
8. let us now suppose that as an alternative, the City Council were to establish as a base, "for
sleeping, 120 square feet for the first two people and 50 square feet for every person
thereafter" and that°sleeping space for 5 people would comprise 1 unit" (or any other numbers
that staff might feel would be appropriate).
9. Example of density based on°units determined by the total square footage designated for sleeping
purposes", on R-2 land at 12 units per acre:
a. A single large bedroom of 300 square feet(12'x 25'), which under the Uniform Housing
Code could sleep five people, counts as 1 unit.
b. Two small bedrooms of 150 square feet each (12'x 12'6°), 300 square feet total, which
under the Uniform Housing Code could sleep a total of five people,counts as 1 unit.
c. Therefore, using a single large 300 square foot bedroom(1 unit)there could be 12
dwellings per acre, each with 5 people, for a density total of 60 people per acre.
d. Or, using two small 150 square foot bedrooms (1 unit)there could be 12 dwellings per
acre, each with five people, for a density total of 60 people per acre.
10. The greater equity is immediately obvious, particularly as it may relate to the demographics of age,
income, ethnicity or race, vocation, tax base contribution, or community services use.
a. Regulations would no longer favor the wealthy who tend to demand larger rooms.
b. Regulations would no longer favor those with few or no children.
c. Regulations would no longer favor older or retired persons .
d. Regulations would no longer favor those with greater disposable income.
e. Regulations would no longer discourage development of affordable housing.
f. Regulations would no longer discourage development of work force housing.
g. Regulations would no longer discourage development of housing for young families.
h. Regulations would no longer discourage development of adequate student housing.
11. Please see the real example attached, showing a designated sleeping space as one large bedroom,
as approved with the original land use permits provided by Ms. Ricci, and the same space divided
into two bedrooms. There is clearly no difference in the resulting density. There is only a difference
in the convenience and utility of the space for the residents. And of course, a difference in the
number of units as defined under the present regulations.
2
�-l3
MACHMENT
RECOMMENDATION
A. That the City Council direct the staff of the Community Development Department to study and
recommend the most appropriate density dwelling unit standards relying primarily on"square
footage assigned for sleeping" rather than the number of bedrooms.
B. That all actions relating to density standards, including this appeal, be tabled and held In
abeyance until that study is complete and appropriate action taken.
C. That the City Council hold public hearings on the recommended new standards.
D. That the City Council then codify more effective and equitable density standards based on the
recommendations of the Planning Department staff and input from the community.
Respectfully submitted.
Michael S. Demaree
3
M A I t S r 1,
M 0 .11 H S ON - D El 1-1 E I ATRICHMENT
JULY'. 1995
-1 Pf Nf-'Woo D- I RN IN E C\ '3260 1 9 I I.fvt:5:,
i19i hwr l S. Denmp.-4,
1:0-11,11 U STE*Ks
The City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
April 18, 2001
ATTACHMENT
TO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 5309-01
(ATTACHMENT IS THREE PAGES TOTAL INCLUDING THIS PAGE)
The purpose of this Attachment is to show, by real and not hypothetical circumstance, that the"number
of bedroomsm definition as presently used in laws and regulations regarding density in the City of San
Luis Obispo may not in any way reflect the"in fact" probable number of occupants of a living unit.
Both drawings refer to five of the group of six units comprising the 1104-1110 Iris complex.
At present the six units of the 11041110 Iris complex are occupied as follows: in Unit 1, two persons;
Unit 2, two persons; Unit 3, one person; Unit 4, one person; Unit 5, one person; Unit 6, two persons. The
total occupancy of the complex is nine persons. There are 11 parking spaces, and generous gardens,
trees, and landscaped Areas.
Drawing W is the unmodified copy of the floor plan used by Ms. Ricci as part of the Staff Report. This
drawing shows the typical upstairs bedroom as originally approved and built in the 11041110 Iris
complex. The one large bedroom is approximately 25' long, and varies in width from approximately 11' to
approximately 13'. If the single bed shown in the upper area were replaced with a double or queen size
bed, the approved large bedroom could easily accommodate four persons.
Drawing*130 is a modified copy of the floor plan used by Ms. Ricci as part of the Staff Report. This
drawing shows how the non-supporting partition, closet, and doorway were typically added to the
upstairs bedroom in five of the units in the 1104-1110 Iris complex. Each resulting sleeping area is
approximately 11'x 12'. If the single bed shown in the upper area were replaced with a double or queen
size bed, each area might accommodate two persons for a total of four persons. In practice in the 1104-
1110 Iris complex, one or two persons sleep in one of the partitioned areas, and the other area is used
for computer equipment and work desks, clothes storage, and such.
It is clearly demonstrated that whether one large bedroom or two small bedrooms are formed in each
unit, the probable maximum number of persons in occupancy will remain unchanged.
The density"in fact'will remain unchanged.
The use of'number of bedroomsm as a density criterion is clearly ineffective and misleading.
a ITACHMENT
Apr-18-01 12:29P City of SLO-CD Dept. 805 781 7173 P.02
nn
n o r lth c;E P 4d
I
o• .r ,
1
' I
bedroom
upper level .
lan,
/6
-ti iAGHMENT
Apr- 18-01 12 :29P City of SLO-CD Dept. 805 781 7173 P.02
AL 6Y
no r t h
• rid
b t�h.
d r 0
Ol
1
dn:
+-
e d r ad
i�
upper levgl
�-17
ATTACHMENT;
��I�NBI�IIIIIIIflIIIIII��;����������IIIIIIIIII I� -Cl� O S�11'1 x,115 oBispo
y
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
April 26, 2001
Michael S. Demaree
Morrison-Demaree Trust
4 Pinewood
Irvine, CA 92604
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Action
(Resolution # 5309-01; Application #O 33-01)
Dear Mr. Demaree:
The City received your appeal on April 23, 2001. We are processing your appeal and will notify
you when the matter will be calendared for a hearing before the City Council.
In reviewing your appeal, it appears that you are not contesting the factual findings and
conclusions of the Planning Commission, but rather are requesting that the City Council amend
the density regulations in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. You also indicate that you
intend to abate the Municipal Code violations from the property at this time.
If this interpretation of your appeal is incorrect, please clarify in writing your intentions so that
we can accurately present your position in the staff report to the City Council.
Please be advised that you will have to contact Mr. Don Wright, the City's Code Enforcement
Officer, to determine whether your proposal to abate the violations as each unit becomes
available is acceptable to the City.
Please call me at (805) 781-7168 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
C4--nzo;
Pamela Ricci,
Associate Planner
cc: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
Don Wright, Code Enforcement Coordinator
L:\Ltr\Demarce Appeal(CC)
/ The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
v� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
M 0 Bili 15 O N - l) V, M. A It I? IA. ,� � U s 'I' ATTACHMENT, v
.1 LAA t`W;
11.1M.A*1101) 11!11\!C t;1 '�'GU1 -'1'h.L'7 t<l...SSI.!7112 - 1'.1\ `+%`7.6::I./1155
1N- Wh,wl Ih,n1nl + rl.rlrl 1:u7r'iw M. i).+1u,lrr
1:u-rare ra_1:
Pamela Ricci, AICP CITY OF SAN LUIS OC!
Planning Division
Community Development Department MAY 7 CUi�
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Tel: 805.781.7168 Fax: 805.781.7173 COMMUNITY DEVELOP":
May 2, 2001
REF: 1104-1110 Iris, Room divisions in single bedroom units.
Appeal of Planning Commission's Action (Resolution#5309-01;Application#O 33-01)
Dear Ms. Ricci:
Thank you for your letter of April 26, 2001. As before, you seem to be continually assisting the
process to run smoothly. It is very much appreciated. In the following, I have tried to clarify my
appeal relative to the questions raised in your letter.
Concerning my appeal to the City Council,factual findings:
1. 1 am not appealing the facts of your report or the facts of the ruling by the Planning
Commission. Those facts concern the original plans and permits, the plans as modified, the
present applicable laws and regulations, the original number of bedrooms per unit, the
modification of five units, and the present number of bedrooms per unit.
Concerning my appeal to the City Council, conclusions of the Planning Commission:
2. 1 am not appealing the conclusion of the Planning Commission insofar as it seemed to be a
straightforward application of the present applicable laws and regulations, and as expressed
by the Planning Commission during the appeal hearing, the Commission does not feel
empowered to change laws and regulations or their application.
3. 1 am appealing the conclusion of the Planning Commission insofar as it did not address the
intent of density laws and regulations, which factor was a key component of my appeal to
the Planning Commission. That is, the conclusion of the Planning Commission did not
address my appeal as my appeal concerned the need for equitable limitation of the number
of people residing in a given area.
4. 1 am also seeking hearing by the City Council because the Planning Commission action did
not address a major part of my appeal to the Planning Commission: that the present density
laws and regulations do not limit density(the number of people residing in a given area)but
rather limit the number of units in a given area(units being defined by the number of
bedrooms per residence).
Concerning my appeal to the City Council,appropriate remedies:
5. 1 am not asking the City Council to amend the entirety of the density regulations of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
6. 1 am not asking the City Council for special or preferential treatment.
1
ATTACHMENT,
7. 1 am suggesting as part of my appeal to the City Council that an appropriate remedy to the
flaws of present density regulations might be as simple as a new definition of density based
on five things:
a. A limitation on the square footage of a residence which can be dedicated as sleeping
area, i.e.: bedrooms or bedroom areas. For example: each residence must contain at
least one designated sleeping area, whether or not such sleeping area is separated from
other areas by walls or partitions,and that sleeping area shall be at least one hundred
twenty(120)square feet.
b. An assumptive designation of square footage dedicated as sleeping area as a minimum
percentage of total residence area. For example: in any residence, at least thirty-five
percent(35%)of the total square footage of the residence, regardless of walls or
partitions or other dividers, shall be considered to be designated sleeping area for
purposes of density.
c. A limitation on the total square footage per acre which can be dedicated as sleeping
area, such limitation to be dependent upon zoning, such as R-1, R-2, R-3, etc., thereby
leaving intact most other laws and regulations impinged by zoning. For example: R-1
zones may have any number of square feet of designated sleeping area per acre under
(a)and(b) above. R-2 zones may have no more than three thousand six hundred
(3,600)square feet of designated sleeping area per acre under(a)and(b)above. R-3
zones may have no more than four thousand eight hundred(4,800)square feet of
designated sleeping area per acre under(a)and(b) above.
d. A definition of a bedroom as a certain number of square feet of designated sleeping
area. For example: for the purposes of determining parking, setbacks, access, and other
health and safety requirements, each one hundred twenty(120)square feet of
designated sleeping area under(a), (b), and(c)above shall be considered one bedroom.
e. A limitation on the number of people who may reside in a residence, such limitation to be
directly proportional to the square footage of that residence dedicated as sleeping area.
For example: occupancy of any residence shall be no more than one (1)person for every
sixty(60)square feet of designated sleeping area.
Concerning my appeal to the City Council,changing the two bedroom configurations back
to one bedroom configurations a this time:
8. 1 prefer to leave the units in the two-bedroom configuration. The present density laws and
regulations requiring the change to the one bedroom configuration seem designed to
maintain the demographic status quo in San Luis Obispo and, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, result in de facto discrimination against certain groups. As a property owner
I would prefer that those faults be corrected.
9. However, we do not know how long a truly productive appeal process might take, and we do
not know the eventual result of that process.
10. Further, 1 do not feel comfortable renting to a new tenant in the two-bedroom configuration
when an eventual ruling may require return to the one bedroom configuration.
11. Therefore, I will apply for the appropriate permit and return each unit to a one-bedroom
configuration as each unit becomes vacant.
2
� as
ATIACHh1ENT
12. The cost of removing the non-structural partition between the two bedrooms, thereby
returning the unit to a one bedroom configuration, is expected to be approximately$200 per
unit, including labor and materials. This cost is not an undue burden.
13. The critical housing shortage in San Luis Obispo makes it equally possible to rent the Iris
units whether in one or two bedroom configuration.
14. Don Wright, Code Enforcement Coordinator, has told me that the present two-bedroom
configuration is not hazardous, and has also stated that with present occupancy of only one
or two people per unit the present bedroom configuration does not impact density.
I hope this answers your questions. Perhaps the inclusion of this clarification with your staff
report to the City Council will help them with the parts of my appeal which may have been
unclear.
Thank you again for all your help. Please do not hesitate to call me if further clarification is
needed.
Cordially,
Michael S. Demaree
MSD: mal
cc: Mr. Don Wright
3
AlIACHMENT 6
i�Ill�ll IIIIf11111 ���,
Al
�� cityOBISPO
01h7a O S�►1'11�,115�
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
April 12, 2001
Michael Demaree
4 Pinewood
Irvine, CA 92604
SUBJECT: 033-01: 1110 Iris Street
Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of a request
to allow unauthorized bedroom conversions to remain, in violation of
City density standards
Dear Mr. Demaree:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 11, 2001, denied your appeal,
upholding the Community Development Director's action, which denied the request to
allow five one-bedroom apartment units to remain converted to two-bedroom
apartments, based on findings, and subject to conditions as listed in the attached
resolution.
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10
days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an
appeal with the City Clerk.
If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
R aid Whise and
Development Review Manager
Attachment: Resolution No. 5309-01
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
cc: Cydney Holcomb
Michael Demaree, Tre Etal R.Q.N.
P.O. Box 262 2076 Hays Street
Porterville, CA 93258 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
�a�
ATTACHMENT 6
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5309-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on April 11, 2001, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application O
33-01., Michael Demaree, applicant/appellant.
ITEM REVIEWED:
Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of a request to allow
unauthorized bedroom conversions to remain, in violation of City density standards
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1110 Iris Street
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at. said hearing has
established existence of the following circumstances:
Findings
1. Allowing the five two-bedroom units at the site to remain results in an overall project
density of 5.66 units. This is in direct violation of the City's zoning regulations
(Section 17.16.010), which allow 4.28 units at the site (0.36 acre x 12 units/acre =
4.28 units).
2. Allowing the five two-bedroom units at the site to remain would constitute a grant of
special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties
in the vicinity with the same zoning, given that other development projects in the
immediate area have been required to maintain their approved number of bedrooms,
consistent with density standards.
3. The five one-bedroom units as shown on the originally approved plans were illegally
converted to two-bedroom units without a building permit and City approval.
�1a3
ATTACHMENT 6
Resolution No. 5252-99
Page 2
4. As included in Condition No. 8 of Use Permit U0637, the original Planning
Commission use permit approving the project in 1977, all dwelling units at the site
were limited to one bedroom each, and no partitions, permanent or temporary, were
allowed to divide approved one-bedroom space into two spaces or bedrooms.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 0 33-01 be denied, and the following
must occur:
1. The applicant shall submit plans to the Building Division and obtain a building permit
to remove the added wall and door down the center of the upper floor of five of the
units to create conforming one-bedroom apartments by May 11, 2001.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by
Commissioner Caruso, and on the following roll call vote:
AYE S: Commrs. Caruso, Aiken,Peterson, Loh, Osborne and Boswell
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
John Mandeville, Secretary
Planning Commission
Dated: April 11, 2001
M 1�, ri t Fjj
_N1 () it ul I SWN' - D F, A Il ATTACHMENT
(:M ITI.,11,VVES
Mr. Don R. Wright
Code Enforcement Coordinator
City of San Luis Obispo
Building and Safety Division
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Tel: 805.781.7179 Fax: 805.781.7173
May 3, 2001
Dear Mr. Wright:
Pam Ricci requested the attached clarification of points in my Appeal of Planning Commission's
Action (Resolution#530941; Application#0 33-01) to the City Council concerning 1104-1110
Ids, room divisions in single bedroom units.
One of the points raised by Ms. Ricci concerns the fact that I am willing to start the removal of
the partitions and return each unit to a one-bedroom configuration before the appeal process has
been fully exercised.
To that end and with your permission, rather than wait and remove the partitions"all at once" I
would like to get a permit and remove each non-structural partition in the time between when a
present tenant vacates the premises and the new tenant moves in. Using this gap time avoids a
real inconvenience for the present tenant who rented the unit in good faith with the two-bedroom
configuration. It also allows me to re-rent in the one-bedroom configuration with no
inconvenience of the new tenant for partition removal at some future date.
With your permission, I will start that process immediately as soon as the next"present tenant'
moves out, and continue the process until the necessary removal of all partitions has been
accomplished.
For reference, the present tenants are:#1 Mark Hartz and Adrienne Bothelo,#2 Mr. and Mrs.
Paul Cmut, #3 Kathryn Rummel, #4 Mr. and Mrs. Brent Meadows, #5 Matthew Swartout, #6 Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Hancock.
Thank you for your help and assistance. I look forward to receiving your permission to return
each unit to a one-bedroom configuration as each unit is vacated by the present tenant(s).
Cordially,
/15/�
Michael S. Demaree
MSD: mal
cc: Pamela Ricci
111111 LA Uy U F-'A1 I LU 1, V CD 1'P V
Elea Building & Safety Divisioi 30 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-32 (805) 781-7180
ATTACHMENT; 7
05/07/01
DEMAREE MICHAEL S TRE ETAL
PO BOX 262
PORTERVILLE, CA 93258 0262
SUBJECT: Follow-up Notice of Code Violation
1110 IRIS
Dear Mr. Demaree:
On 04/11/01, The City Planning Commission denied your appeal of staff's
interpretation of the Zoning ordinance and directed you to obtain a building
permit by 05/11/01 to remove unpermitted work on the above-mentioned property.
I have read your letter, dated 05/03/01. In response to your request that we
allow the illegal partitions to remain indefinitely (obtaining permits to
correct the violations as the units are vacated) , unfortunately, that will not
be acceptable. One reason for this is that we cannot allow the partitions to
remain without inspecting them, we cannot fully inspect them without a permit
and approved plans, and we cannot approve plans and issue a permit for work that
does not comply with the law.
Also, I would like to add that this department should not be implicated as
bearing any responsibility for inconveniencing the tenants or any breaching of
"good faith" in their understanding of conditions of the premises. You, as the
property owner, elected to improve your property without obtaining the approvals
required by law and have enjoyed the benefits of these improvements for some
time now. It is simply not reasonable and there is no legal basis for us to
approve conditions as they are now and allow the violations to continue any
longer.
A code-correction permit can be issued over-the-counter, without plans, to
restore all the units to their original condition for $35.00. This permit would
be valid for 90 working days, which, if issued May 11 for instance, would give
you until September 14 to complete the work. This is the limit of any extended
time period that may be granted. I am prepared however, to extend the deadline
for obtaining the permit to two weeks from the date of this letter, 05/21/01.
If a permit is not issued by that date, we will be forced to refer the matter to
the City Attorney for resolution.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 781-7179.
Sincerely,
<::I�s . )
Don R. Wright
Code Enforcement Coordinator
cc: Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner
-�CJ
Draft Planning Commission Ni.rdtes - OTTACHMENT
April 11, 2001
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1110 Iris Street: O 33-01; Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial
of a request to allow unauthorized bedroom conversions to remain, in violation of
City density standards; R-2-S zone; Michael Demaree, applicant/appellant.
(continued from March 28, 2001).
Associated Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report and recommended denying the
appeal, thereby upholding the Community Development Director's action which denied
the request to allow five one-bedroom apartment units to remain that were converted to
two-bedroom apartments without permits, based upon findings and subject to one
condition. She pointed out that a use permit approved with the original project review in
1977 prohibited any further division of the one-bedroom units.
Commr. Aiken had staff review the room sizes and the qualification and definition of "a
bedroom."
Commr. Caruso had staff review unit floor plans and the maximum allowed density.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Michael Demaree, applicant and appellant, distributed a letter to the Commission and
stated the partitions were in the bedrooms when he purchased the property, with the
exception of one. He is not interested in increasing the density and stated he would
comply with the intent of the density regulations. He felt that the intent of the density
regulations is equally served whether the units have one bedroom or whether that one
bedroom has been partitioned into two bedrooms. He noted that Page 3, paragraph 3,
of the staff report says the controlling factor on occupancy limitations is the Uniform
Housing Code (UHC), but the UHC deals with density in terms of how many people can
sleep relative to square footage. He cited UHC Section 503 and reviewed the allowed
occupancy under the UHC, noting there is no difference in the allowable density
between one bedroom and that same square footage divided into two bedrooms. He
reviewed the available bicycle/auto parking, noting that the requirements are met. He
commented that the property is well maintained and urged support of his appeal.
David Jeffrey, 1128 Iris Street, encouraged the Commission to uphold the Director's
decision to deny the appeal. He commented on the parking impacts created by
increased density noting a two-unit bedroom unit with five renters results in five more
cars impacting the neighborhood. He expressed concerns with setting a citywide
precedent by allowing the partitions to remain, establishing two bedrooms out of one
without permits. He noted the UHC establishes a minimum living standard, not a
standard embraced in San Luis Obispo.
Paul Hancock, 1110 Iris Street, #6, said he has lived at this complex comfortably for
� a�
Draft Planning Commission M.,rites AT
April 11, 2001
Page 3
three years. He has made landscaping improvements and noted only one to two
persons live in the units at one time. He felt there is ample parking and the complex is
well maintained.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Osborne moved to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the Community
Development Director's action which denied the request to allow five one-bedroom units
that were illegally converted to two bedroom units without a building permit, with
findings and conditions as recommended by staff. Commr. Caruso seconded the
motion.
Commr. Caruso expressed support of the motion and noted the original 1977 use permit
specifically addresses the number of allowed bedrooms in the development.
Commr. Boswell concurred with staffs recommendations.
Commr. Loh expressed concern with setting a precedent and concurred with staffs
recommendations.
Associate Planner Ricci suggested, in light of the language contained in the original use
permit, to include an additional Finding 4 to state: As described in Condition Number 8
of Use Permit U 0637, all dwelling units on the site were limited to one bedroom each,
and no partitions, permanent or temporary, were allowed to divide the one bedroom
spaces into two spaces or two bedrooms.
Comrnrs. Osborne and Caruso accepted the inclusion of Finding 4.
Commissioner Peterson voiced his support for the motion, but felt the City's method of
applying density units to the different.bedrooms should be addressed at a later date.
AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Caruso, Aiken. Loh, Boswell, and Chairman Peterson
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
The motion carried 6-0.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
April 25: 1795 McCollum Street project.
�-a O
R 'B -1 S WN - .D P, M, A 1' 1: V ATTACHMENT,
.It'
I 1-IM-AMID- IRVINE C% 1'(,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION Sub mt-fl--fo(
DEMAREE APPEAL
4 - I I - 0 1 ryl
Site Development: Two separate development parcels are involved,
1104 Iris(003-571-017)and 1110 Iris(003-571-016).
Purchase date September, 1997,4 of 6 units already partitioned.
Partition added to unit 1,April, 1998
Complaint filed, May, 2000, two years later.
Density: The intent of the density regulations is to limit the number of people in a given area.
This limitation is meant to maximize the quality of living by providing more open space and less
traffic and parking congestion. Our desire, as property owners, is to support and comply with the
intent of the density regulations. The intent of those regulations is to our advantage. I would
submit that in this case, the intent of the density regulations is equally served whether the units
have one bedroom or that one bedroom has been partitioned into two bedrooms.
By Staff Report, Page 3, Paragraph 3,
"The controlling factor on occupancy limitations is the Uniform Housing Code(UHC)."
UHC, Section 503, requires one bedroom of at least 120 square- feet. Additional rooms
must be at least 70 square feet. Where more than two people occupy a room used for
sleeping purposes, the floor area shall be increased by 50 square feet for each occupant
in excess of two.
As a"one bedroom", the one bedroom is approximately 11'x 25', or 275 square feet
UHC would allow 2 occupants for the first 120 square feet and an additional occupant for
each additional 50 square feet. The balance after the 120 square feet is approximately
155 square feet, appropriate for an additional 3 occupants.
As a one bedroom, the UHC allows five(5)occupants per unit
As a"two bedroom", one bedroom is approximately 13' x 12', or 156 square feet, and the
other bedroom is approximately 10' x 12', or 120 square feet. UHC would allow only 2
occupants for one room(120+50=170 square feet as required for three occupants
exceeds the square footage available for either room), and would allow only 3 occupants
for the other room(70+50=120 square feet as required for three occupants is within the
square footage available for either room, and 70+50+50=170 square feet as required for
four occupants exceeds the square footage available for either room)
As a two bedroom, the UHC allows five(5)occupants per unit.
AlIACHMENTj 9
Parking:Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, February 18, 2000, Section
17.16.060, "Parking Space Requirements"
Page 44, "Dwellings", other than R-1.
1.5 for the first bedroom, plus 0.5 for each additional bedroom, requires:
1104 Iris, 5.5 spaces(5 available); and 1110 Iris, 6 spaces(6 available)
Page 50, Table 6.5, Bicycle Parking Space Requirements, R-2
5%of required parking spaces
1104 Iris, none required(0.275); and 1110 Iris, none required(0.25)
Page 41, Section 17.16.060, E, 2.
Each unit has space for at least two bicycles to be parked inside the fenced yard area.
Car spaces may be reduced by up to 10°x6 for each 5 bicycle spaces above requirements
1104 Iris, reduced 5.5 by 10%to 5 spaces required
1110 Iris, reduced 6 by 10%to 5 spaces required
Site Maintenance:
The units at 1104 and 1110 Iris are some of the loveliest properties around. The gardens are full
of flowers, the parking lots have just been re-paved, and new architectural shingle roofing has
been applied to all buildings. If you were to visit the complex you would think, "What a lovely
place to live." And it is.
The most serious drawback to the looks of the complex used to be a dumpster for general trash
and many orange boxes for recyclables, all of which tended to be constantly in view. At the time
the parking area was repaved, a small extension was added to house small rolling refuse
containers, with separate containers for general waste, green waste, and recyclables. A low
fence was added around the new trash area which hides the trash receptacles from.view. It
looks very good now. These improvements were all approved by Arnold Jonas, Community
Development Director.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant the appeal. The partition of the single bedrooms into two rooms fully complies with and in
no way interferes with or subverts the Intent of the density regulations.
FINDINGS:
1. Density will not be impacted whether one or two bedrooms are required or allowed.
2. Special privilege will not be granted in that intended density standards will have been
uniformly met through compliance with the controlling Uniform Housing Code.
Condition:
Building permits to be obtained for the five existing partitions.
2
4-3D
ATTACHMENT, 10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM#1
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner RVI MEETING DATE: April 11, 2001
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage
FILE NUMBER: OTHER 33-01
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1110 Iris Street
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of a request to allow
unauthorized bedroom conversions to remain, in violation of City density standards, for property
located on the northwest side of Iris Street,between Henry& Ruth Streets(see Attachment 1).
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director's action, which denied the
request to allow five one-bedroom apartment units to remain illegally converted to two-bedroom
apartments.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The appellant owns a small apartment project located on Iris Street on the other side of the tracks
from the railroad station. Work was done without a building permit or City approval on five of
the six units to create two-bedroom units where one-bedroom units were originally approved by
adding walls down the centers of the original bedrooms. The City first became aware of the
issue on May 5, 2000, when a neighbor filed a complaint that the project did not comply with
density standards and that there were issues with parking and site maintenance. The first notice
of code violation was mailed to the appellant on May 18, 2000. Since then there have been
numerous correspondences and conversations between the appellant and Community
Development Department staff on the matter (see Attachment 5).
As discussed further in the Evaluation portion of this report, the project with two-bedroom units
does not comply with City density requirements. The appellant is basically contesting City staff
direction to eliminate the added wall in five of the units to create additional bedrooms because of
how his tenants use the space. In staff s opinion, the Planning Commission has little discretion
in the matter given the way the City's zoning regulations are written. However, upon request,
the Director, or his/her designee, in this case, the Development Review Manager, provides
written determinations on the applicability of the regulations under Section 17.02.040 of the
zoning regulations (see Attachment 4). Like specified administrative and discretionary actions
included in the zoning regulations, the Director's determination is subject to appeal under the
procedures identified in Chapter 17.66. On February 22, 2001, the appellant submitted a letter
appealing the Manager's determination (see Attachment 3). The Planning Commission is the
designated review body for appeals of the Director's, or his designee's, decisions.
This matter was originally scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2001.
At the request of the appellant (see Attachment 6), it was continued to a date certain—4-11-01.
�3l
ATTACHMENT
Other 33-01 (Demaree Appeal)
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 1110 Iris Street
Property Owner/Appellant: Michael S. Demaree
Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2-S)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential with the Special Consideration overlay
Environmental status: Categorically exempt under Section 15303.(b), Class 3, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project action deadline: The zoning regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the
earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to
a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal.
Site Description
The rectangular site contains 15,549 square feet (0.36 acre). It is developed with 6 units
including a triplex, a duplex and a house. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single-
family homes and apartments.
EVALUATION
The maximum allowed density of the project is 4.28 units (0.36 acre x 12 units/acre = 4.28
units). The City's zoning regulations (Section 17.16.010) assign density values for residential
units based on the number of bedrooms in each unit. For example, a one-bedroom unit has a
value of 0.66 unit, and a two-bedroom unit has a value of 1.00 unit. The project site's density
would allow for 6 one-bedroom units to be developed (6 x .66= 3.96 units).
As documented in a series of enforcement letters sent to the appellant, five of the six units have
been converted illegally from one-bedroom units to two-bedroom units. In these units, one
larger bedroom was divided into two separate bedrooms by adding a wall with a door down the
center. This increases the overall project density from 3.96 units to.5.66 units. This modified
density does not conform to City regulations since it is in excess of the maximum allowed
density of 4.28 units.
The zoning regulations do not directly provide a definition of a bedroom. However; the
definition of a "den" (or "family room", "sewing room", "loft" or "studio"), those areas of
typical floor spaces that are not bedrooms, kitchens or bathrooms, is defined. That definition is:
"A room which is open on at least one side, does not contain a wardrobe, closet
or similar facility, and which is not designed for sleeping."
A room is not considered a bedroom if it meets all of the above criteria. Building Division staff
has inspected the site and confirmed that two separated and fully enclosed spaces with closets
exist on the upper floors of the apartments, and therefore, are considered bedrooms, rather than
"dens" (see the floor plan which is a part of Attachment 2). Correspondences from the appellant
� a
ATTACHMENT, 0
Other 33-01 (Demaree Appeal)
Page 3
also confirm his acknowledgement of the physical changes made that created the second
bedrooms.
The appellant's appeal letter mentions that one of the bedrooms is used for other activities
besides sleeping such as office work and storage. However, identification of a room on plans
that it is some other kind of room besides a bedroom does not change the way Community
Development staff would classify it. People use rooms for different purposes depending on the
number of persons residing in the unit, their relationships to one another and lifestyle
preferences. As tenants change, the same floor space in the unit may be used differently. The
controlling factor is how the floor area is physically arranged in relationship to other parts of the
unit. The bottom line is that a room must meet all of the criteria listed above for a "den",
including being open on at least one side, to not be considered a bedroom in terms of City
density requirements.
Community Development Department staff has advised the applicant that the floor plan needs to
be modified to show one large room as originally approved, rather than two separate and
enclosed rooms to address density concerns. The appellant wants to leave the rooms the way
they are and has offered to record a covenant agreement that runs with the land to limit the
number of persons that are allowed to reside in the units. There is no provision in the City's
regulations to allow the density restrictions of a zone to be circumvented through a covenant.
Another related issue is that the City is restricted in terms of the law on how occupancies are
limited. An ordinance that specifically limited occupancy to three unrelated persons was
rescinded after it was found to be unconstitutional on right to privacy grounds. The controlling
factor on occupancy limitations is the Uniform Housing Code (UHC). Section 503 of the UHC
limits occupancy based on the physical size in square footage of the bedrooms.
The concerns that staff has with allowing the rooms in question to remain in their present
arrangement with a covenant are many. One obvious concern is the undesirable precedent that it
would represent. It is very important that a City has consistent criteria and that the criteria are
consistently applied from project to project. The City utilizes the number of bedrooms as a
physical basis for identifying units in terms of density, except in the R-I zone. The changes that
have been made to the units would also affect other property development standards that directly
relate to density, such as parking. The City's ability to effectively regulate the intensity of
residential development would be materially compromised by allowing physical changes
inconsistent with the regulations to remain in place through the recordation of a covenant.
Citizen Participation
At the March 28, 2001 meeting, the matter was continued, but public testimony was taken. Mark
Hartson, a resident of one of the units, indicated that the landlord told him that the second
bedroom upstairs was to be used as a study or an office. David Jeffrey, neighbor, expressed
concerns with how long it has taken for the matter to be resolved. He also questioned whether
the City had any responsibility to assist displaced tenants to find alternative housing.
1 1
ATTACHMENT
Other 33-01 (Demaree Appeal)
Page 4
Staff would like to briefly respond to the concerns raised by the public testimony. Regarding the
timing issue, it is staff's understanding that the room conversions have been in place for some
time. The City became aware of the conversions based on a citizen complaint. Typically a
matter like this would not involve the review of the Planning Commission. The appellant's
decision to appeal the Director's decision has delayed the ultimate resolution of the matter.
In regard to the second issue of displaced tenants, if the second bedrooms were being used as
other rooms as indicated by the appellant and the tenant who testified at the hearing,.then this
would be a moot point. However, when the City is informed that conversions have been done to
create additional bedrooms or living units, the City has the responsibility to follow through and
act on the complaint and require corrective actions to abate all Municipal Code violations if
substantiated. Health & Safety Code Sections 17980.7.(d)(3)(A) requires the property to assist
any tenants that are displaced because of illegal conversions.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may indicate their support for the intent of the appeal, and suggest that
alternative ways of defining unit sizes for density purposes be explored. However, given that
the current regulations do not allow for the conversions that have been made, the appellant
should be directed to eliminate the added wall with door that have created the two-bedroom
units. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to grant an appeal that would
be contrary to the City's zoning regulations.
2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be
given to staff and the appellant.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Planning Staff has worked closely with the Code Enforcement Coordinator in the Building
Division on this matter. No other departments were contacted.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director's action, which denied the
request to allow five one-bedroom apartment units to remain converted to two-bedroom
apartments, based on the following findings, and subject to the following condition:
Findings
1. Allowing the five two-bedroom units at the site to remain results in an overall project density
of 5.66 units. This is in direct violation of the City's zoning regulations (Section 17.16.010),
which allow 4.28 units at the site (0.36 acre x 12 units/acre =4.28 units).
2. Allowing the five two-bedroom units at the site to remain would constitute a grant of special
privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity
ATTACHMENT I
Other 33-01 (Demaree Appeal)
Page 5
with the same zoning, given that other development projects in the immediate area have been
required to maintain their approved number of bedrooms,consistent with density standards.
3. The five one-bedroom units as shown on the originally approved plans were illegally converted
to two-bedroom units without a building permit and City approval.
Condition
1. The applicant shall submit plans to the Building Division and obtain a building permit to
remove the added wall and door down the center of the upper floor of five of the units to
create conforming one-bedroom apartments by May 11, 2001.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map included as ANzcGhmen+ -Fn Cooncli
Attachment 2: Unit floor plan & site plan re ort
Attachment 3: Appeal letter from Michael Demaree received 2-22-01 CAS amen t 1�
Attachment 4: Letter from Planning staff to Michael Demaree dated 2-13-01
Attachment 5: Enforcement correspondences
Attachment 6: Continuance letter dated 3-19-01 from Michael and Nanette Demaree
Use\O 33-01 (Demaree appeal)
�-35
ATTACHMENT j
M 0 R R I S 0 N - D EM it .ii: t: T ji u S r17
JULY3. 1995
4 PINEV7001)-MVINE CA 92604-TEL 949.551.1842 -FAX 949-551.655.;
Nlidjar,l S. ;-wd Nwwl,w Al. Dc�niareo
CO-TRUSTEE'S 000F qty
LUIS OBISpO
Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo
clo Ronald Whisenand, Community Development Department
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249 Nm,pFYEIOPMENT
FORMAL APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Of the final decision of Ronald Whisenand
Dated February 13,2001 concerning 1110 Iris Street Density Issues
Mr. Whisenand's decision is substantially a statement of the rules and regulations concerning
density determination. Density is measured by"the number of bedroomsn per given land area.
The rules and regulations limit the number of bedrooms per given land area.
The intent of the density rules and regulations, however, is to limit the number of people residing
in a given land area. Although it was not addressed in Mr. Whisenand's decision, my
assumption is that a"one bedroom" (.66 density unit) might represent residence of 66%of an
average 4.3 person family grouping (3 people)and that a"two bedroom" (1 density unit)might
represent residence of 100%of an average 4.3 person family grouping (4 people).
Five of the six apartments at 110411110 Iris were originally constructed with one very large
bedroom including closet, approximately 13'x 22', with two sliding glass doors opening onto two
separate balconies. Each single bedroom could easily accommodate three or four people.
Starting some years before my purchase of the properties each of these five large bedrooms was
divided into two rooms, each approximately 11'x 13' including closet, and each with sliding glass
door opening onto a balcony. Each smaller bedroom might accommodate a maximum of two
people, for a maximum total of four people.
In fact, at the present time two apartments have only two residents each, and the other three
apartments have only one resident each. In practice one of the two bedrooms is used for
sleeping and the other is used for activities such as work or computer and for additional storage.
The purpose of this appeal is not to circumvent the intent of the density rules and regulations, as
the intent of those rules and regulations is more than met in present residency patterns.
The purpose of this appeal is to find an acceptable way to ensure continued compliance with the
intent of the density rules and regulations, while maintaining for the residents at 1104/1110 Iris
the convenience of a sleeping area fully separated from an activity/work/storage area.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
.—A
Michael S. Demaree, Trustee, for February 20, 2001
Morrison-Demaree Trust, Owner Mail, Return Receipt
cc: Don Wright
Attachment 4-:
_ AtlTACHME_NT I 0
�Iiallll�nl� IIIIIIIIIIII� �
of
ci
A y
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
February 13, 2001
Michael S. Demaree
Morrison-Demaree Trust
4 Pinewood
Irvine, CA 92604
SUBJECT: 1110 Iris Street Density Issues
Dear Mr. Demaree:
You have asked the Community Development Department to provide you with written
documentation regarding the density of an apartment project that you own at 1110 Iris Street.
The project is built on two adjoining lots (APN: 003-571-016 & 003-571-017) and is zoned R-2,
Medium-Density Residential. The project consists of 6 units including a triplex, a duplex and a
house. According to microfilmed plans of the project, the total site area, including both lots, is
15,549 square feet(0.36 acre).
The maximum allowed density of the project is 4.28 units (0.36 acre x 12 units/acre = 4.28
units). The City's zoning regulations (Section 17.16.010) assign density values for residential
units based on the number of bedrooms in each unit. For example, a one-bedroom unit has a
value of 0.66 unit, and a two-bedroom unit has a value of 1.00 unit. The project site's density
would allow for 6 one-bedroom units to be developed (6.x .66 =3.96.units).
As documented in a series of enforcement letters sent to you, five of the six units have been
converted from one-bedroom units to two-bedroom units. Dividing one larger bedroom in the
five units in question into two separate bedrooms created this conversion. This increases the
overall project density from 3.96 units to 5.66 units. This modified density does not conform to
City regulations-since it is in excess of the maximum allowed density of 4.28 units.
The zoning regulations do not directly provide a definition of a bedroom. However, the
definition of a "den" (or "family room", "sewing room", "loft" or "studio'), those areas of
typical floor spaces that are not bedrooms, kitchens or bathrooms, is defined. That definition is:
"A room which is open on at least one side, does not contain a wardrobe, closet
or similar facility, and which is not designed for sleeping."
A room is not considered a bedroom if it meets all of the above criteria. Labels placed on plans
that they are some other kind of room besides a bedroom are not good enough. People use
rooms for different purposes depending on the number of persons residing at the house; their
relationships to one another and lifestyle preferences. Properties are sold over time to other
people that may use the same floor space differently. The controlling factor is how the floor area
4 Attachment;/O The City of San Luis Obispo is c• services, programs and activities.
Tel
ecommunications Device for tl /1 �/
Demaree Letter ��. ATTAINJENT 7 .�
Page 2
is physically arranged in relationship to other parts of the house. The bottom line is that a room
must meet all of the criteria above, including being open on at least one side, to not be
considered a bedroom.
Therefore, for the five units in question to comply with City density requirements, I have
determined that the added walls need to be removed, or some other physical changes made to the
floor plans to create complying one-bedroom units.' While the idea of a covenant agreement
being recorded that would limit occupancy of the units is a creative solution, it is not a solution
allowed by the zoning regulations.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of the action. Any
person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal.
If you have any questions, please call Pam Ricci at(805) 781-7168.
Sincerely.
onal Whisenand."
Development Review Manager
cc: Don Wright, Code Enforcement Coordinator
LAUAI)cmarcc density(I 110 Iris)
ATTACHMENT. j
City of San Luis Obispo
Investigation Report
By: Mark Ellery
Subject: 1110 IRIS /complaint
Date: 05/11/00
"The violations listed herein are those that were observed at the time of this inspection and do
not include violations which may have been overlooked, concealed, or which become evident
when work is begun."
Result: Visited site 5/11/00 to verify the conversion of six one bedroom apartment units into
two bedroom units. The tenant living in unit#1 granted access to inspect the interior of his
apartment. A new wall, closet and door have been installed to create a second bedroom in
the upstairs sleeping area. The tenant living in unit#2 verbally confirmed the same
configuration in her apartment. The tenants were not home in the four remaining apartments.
Notes:
Attachment 5 � 39
►►► � city or san dui s oBl sro
Building & Safety Division 990 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-324y (805) 781-7180 flTgvi iN9ENT ;)
05/18/00
DEMAREE MICHAEL S TRE ETAL
PO BOX 262
PORTERVILLE, CA 93258 0262
SUBJECT: Notice of Code Violation
1110 IRIS
Dear Mr. Demaree:
On 05/11/00, Community Development Department staff inspected property you own at 1110
IRIS. Staff noted that partitions had been constructed in two of the six dwelling units on the
property to create additional bedrooms. (tenants of the other four units were not available at the
time to grant access) Additionally, it was noted that asphalt paving had been extended beyond
the original parking lot and the trash container was outside the enclosure.
Please be aware that the situation described above does not meet building/zoning ordinance
regulations, and appears to violate San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections(s):
M.C.17.17.050 Front Yard Paving
U.A.C. 301.1 Altered Structure, Building Permit Required
M.C. 17.16.010 Density
We request that you take action to comply with these ordinance requirement(s) by obtaining a
building permit to either remove the unpermitted walls or, with Planning Division approval, allow
them to remain. Community Development Director's approval would also be required for the
additional paving.
You will need to contact the Building and Safety Division at City Hall, 990 Palm St. (781-7180)
upon receipt of this letter. Staff will be able to inform you of permit requirements and possible
options regarding the scope of your project. At that time, or sooner if possible, it will be
necessary to arrange an inspection of the remaining four units to verify their condition. (your
verification that they have been similarly sub-divided will suffice, in lieu of an inspection) If we
do not receive a response by 06/02/00 further enforcement action will become necessary.
If you have questions, please call me at (805) 781-7179.
Sincerely,
Don R. Wright
Code Enforcement Coordinator
cc: Hal Hannula, Building Permit Coordinator
li'i :i () N - I) F, M A !% F F: rf ii U S `i' PHACHME.-K t sJ
PA.) ::. 1495 _82.X7
I��r:r.r.'n ll,•. l:A 032 N 't,J: :,1'!. 8Y.}l772 t"n%:
1'li •ivi'.'I ;. (9 •nt,u •r nnli �I\znu•Ii ' 1'l. I)rin:u'r,t•
0
Mr. Don R. Wright
Code Enforcement Coordinator
City of San Luis Obispo
Building and Safety Division
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Tel: 805.781.7179
June 1, 2000
Dear Mr. Wright:
This is to confirm that we received your letter dated May 18, 2000. It was received yesterday,
with a postage meter date of May 24, 2000, which is why our response was not made sooner.
We hope you received our telephone message around 12:15 PM today explaining that we are
responding to you in writing today.
Of the four units.you did not inspect, three(units 3, 4, and 5) have an added room divider on the
second floor. Unit 6 has no added divider.
We will immediately take action by working with you and the other appropriate city departments
to find the remedies that best meet both the requirements of the city and the needs of our
present tenants. Of course our first step will be to learn what the city requirements are. Our
second step will be appropriate compliance.
Cordially,
Michael S. Demaree
MSD:mal
ATIACHMENT
MORRISON - DEMAREE Til' us 'll
JuL',-3. ]()95
4111NEWOOD- IRVINE CA
TVIIJoid S. Nanetw.jM. Doni'aree
Pamela Ricci, AICP
Planning Division
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Tel: 805.781.7168 Fax: 805.781.7173
BY FAX AND MAIL, RETURN RECIPT
February 4, 2001
REF:1104-1110 Iris, Room divisions In single bedroom units.
Dear Ms. Ricci:
This letter may be somewhat lo-ng, but the problem has become critical and I need your help to
sort it out. I appreciate your understanding.
My wife was a high school administrator for 25 years. I worked as a field office Manager IV with
the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles for many years. We both were responsible
for the appropriate application of laws and regulations. We both supervised numbers of people
who under our guidance were responsible for the administration of laws and regulations.
In both our experiences, if an employee made application of law and regulation which was not
acceptable to a member of the public, thatmember of the public would"appeal"to the next level
up in the supervisory chain. When I was with DMV, a member of the public dissatisfied with one
of my employees would appeal to the first level supervisor. If still dissatisfied the appeal would
be taken to the section manager. If still dissatisfied the appeal would be taken to the assistant
manager, and if still dissatisfied the appeal would be brought to me. If I was unable to find an
acceptable solution in the situation, the member of the public could appeal to the district
manager, and then to the division chief, and then to the Director of the DMV. If still dissatisfied,
the member of the public could appeal to the State Secretary of Transportation, and then the
Governor. Then, if dissatisfied with the Governor's answer the member of the public could rely
on the courts. But the first step was always the clear decision by the"front lineo employee and, if
the member of the public was dissatisfied, the clear explanation to that member of the public of
the recourse available.
Following is a brief history of my encounter with the planning and building departments
concerning room divisions in single bedroom units at 11041110 Iris.
June 8, 2000 In response to an e-r1forcement notice and a subsequent conversation
with Don Wright, I met with you on June 8, 2000, concerning room divisions in single bedroom
units at 1104-1110 Iris. You were very helpful explaining the situation to me, and even
suggested a covenant in the deed as a possible solution to the problem.
June 9, 2000 1 wrote to you, thanking you for your help and promising to get back to
you as quickly as possible with a proposed solution.
ATTACHMENT -1 D
June 27, 2000 1 wrote to you outlining a plan for compliance, and stating that as soon
as this was approved I would take immediate steps to carry out the plan for compliance.
July 12, 2000 1 received a telephone message from you telling me that my proposed
solution to the"density question"was not acceptable.
July 13, 2000 1 wrote to you explaining my understanding of the"density question" and
also explaining the ways in which I believed my proposed plan would comply with the intent of
the laws and regulations as I understood them. I also asked you to"set me straight" if there was
something incorrect in my understanding of the intent of the laws and regulations, or if my
proposed plan for compliance did not address that intent.
I never received a response from you to my letter of July 13, 2000. R few weeks after that my
wife and I moved to Southern California and with the strain and stress of the move I did not
follow up on your failure to respond.
December 18, 2000 We received a letter from Don Wright(written December 12) requesting
that we make application for permits for the"unpermitted work". This seemed to indicate that my
proposal had been accepted and the next step was simply to get the permits and appropriate
inspections for the work that had been done.
December 18, 2000 1 immediately wrote to Don Wright and explained that we were leaving
the country within a few days, would be gone over the holidays, returning on January 6, 2001,
and that I would immediately undertake the permitting required upon my return.
Monday,January 8,2001 1 called the building department and spoke with Hal
Hannula, who was very helpful. He said he would send a copy of the building plans on file to
help me with appropriate drawings for the work which had been done, and also send the
application for permit, and call when they had been sent. He said that most everything could be
done by mail except the inspections and signing of documents.
Friday,January 12,2001 Mr. Hannula called me and said that 1 would have to get
it cleared with the Planning Department and until that was done there was no point in continuing
the permitting process.
Friday,January 12,2001 1 immediately wrote to you restating my proposal for
complying with the intent of density laws and regulations.
I never received a response from you to my letter of January 12, 2001.
January 30,2000 1 received a threatening phone call from Don Wright
demanding that this be taken care of as it had gone on too long. I agreed. He also said that you
had dropped by his desk and told him that what I had proposed was not OK I told him that I had
not received any decision from you and that I would get in touch with you and request a decision
in writing in response to my letters of June 27 and July 13, 2000, and my letter of January 12,
2001. He said you had projects and reports you were involved with and were probably too busy.
He then said that talking about it at all was a kindness and that he"...could require immediate
compliance and then we could decide later on whether it was necessary after the walls had been
removed."
2
ATTACHMENT D
To me that was very very frightening. It was as though he had taken a personal dislike to me
and was threatening me and frightening me under color of his authority. His statements clearly
implied that there was no recourse and no appeal possible concerning his decisions. f have
been too upset for the past few days to even write a letter.
So here we are at 1:00 A.M. on February 4, 2000. 1 desperately need your help.
1. Please send me your decision in response to my proposed plan for compliance, in writing, as
soon as possible. I need that as a first step to getting this situation resolved. Let me know by
fax if you no longer have copies of my letters setting out my plan and I will send copies
immediately.
2. Please include the steps and alternatives for appeal should your decision be unfavorable to
me.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Cordially,
Michael S. Demaree
MSD:mal
cc: Mr. Don Wright
3 /,
fl=:NU[:MAtt ULMAUtt to: uon wngm aw Lane:err/iul mne:'faaa:ou rage f of f
ATTACHMENT li
MORRISON— UEMAREE 'TRUST
JULY 3.1995
4 PINEWOOD-1NVINE CA V2W4-TEL 949.551.1842--FAX 949.551.6855
Michael S. Demaree and Nanette M. Demaree
CO-TRUSTEES
Mr. Don R. Wright
Code Enforcement Coordinator
City of San Luis Obispo
Building and Safety Division
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Tel:805.781.7179 Fax: : 805.781.7173
BY FAX ONLY
February 9, 2001
Dear Mr. Wright:
Thank you very much for your telephone call this morning. I appreciated your clearing up my
misunderstanding of what you had said. To make sure I understood the conversation today, let me
restate the main points.
1. You had not intended to threaten or frighten, but only to explain that you were, for want of a
better word, showing'kindness:and attempting to be as cooperative as possible in the
resolution of this matter.
2. Room partitions were present in,units 42, #3, 9.4, and.#5 long.before.I purchased the.property.
Based on the other room partitions, I allowed a tenant to install a room partition in W. There is
no divider in#6.
3. Pam Ricci would be sending me a written administrative decision.
4. An administrative decision can of course be appealed. You do not know the appeal process,
but Ms. Ricci would undoubtedly include information on the appeal process should I be
dissatisfied with the administrative decision.
5. That you generally did not require immediate action if the situation were not hazardous, and
that the partitions in the bedroom were not hazardous, and further, in present usage did not
impact density requirements.
6. That even though present usage did not impact density requirements,the partition of the
bedroom into two rooms made it possible to impact density requirements and there was no way
to reasonably be sure that was not going to happen.
7. That the use of a deed covenant to comply with density requirements was probably not going
to be allowed in the administrative decision.
8. That we would work together to get the situation resolved in as timely a manner as possible.
9. That I would copy you on all activity and communication.
10. That the next step is the letter from Pam Ricci to me, and then my timely response, either to
appeal or to remove the partitions.
If I have left out or misinterpreted anything, please let me know. Otherwise we are on our way
again. Thanks again for your call.
Cordially,
Michael S. Demaree i T"1P l`
l -1>�-V tr-Y A—f( l a ' Vu-crr
MSD: mal l
✓c V A&• 3 PR vn7f ov e� w) C-"eT;;-
From:MICHAEL DEMAREE To: Ricci SLO Date:3/19/101 Time: 13:39:25 Page 1 01 I
ATTACHMENT, 1 c)
MORRISON- DEMaRIEE TRUST
JULY 3. 1995 -- -
4 PINEWOOD-IRVINE CA 9604-TEL 949.551.184-FAX S49.55168SS
Michael S. Deinaree and Nanette M. Demaree
CO-TRUSTEES
Pamela Ricci, AICP
Planning Division
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Tel: 805.781.7168 Fax: 805.781 7173
March 19, 2001
REF: 1104-1110 Iris,Room divisions in single bedroom units.
Dear Ms. Ricci:
Thank you so much for calling this morning to make sure we knew of the upcoming hearing
scheduled for March 28 concerning the Iris apartments.
As I explained on the phone, we have been quite concerned over a conflict of schedules between
the hearing set for March 28 and an appointment at the White House in Washington D.C. on
March 29. We feel that it is imperative that we are at the hearing, and we have been unable to
reschedule the Washington appointment.
Your willingness to reschedule the hearing for a subsequent Planning Commission Meeting, either
on April 11 or April 25 was quite a relief. Either date, or indeed any date in April after April 8, would
work very well for us.
Again, thank you so much for putting our minds at rest. We will plan on seeing you on either April
11 or April 25, as best suds the needs of the Planning Commission. Please notify us when the
date is set.
Cordially,
Nanette M. Demaree
NMDmal
CC' Mr. Don Wright
Attachment 6
14 -4b-
y _
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING. COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 1165-77
I
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a Public
Hearing in the Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo,
California, or. November 16, 1977, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
APPLICATION NO. U 0637 by VINCENT CROOKS.
USE PERMIT REQUESTED:
For multi-family residential development
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall
GENERAL LOCATION: -
1104 S 1110 Iris Street "
PRESENT ZONE:
R-2-S (Pending) R-3 (Now)
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies
made by itself, and in its behalf, and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has -
established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of persons living or working in the area.
2. The proposed project is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compat-
ible with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use and project conform to the General Plan.
4. The proposed use and project will not have a significant environmental impact on
9 the proposed site.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Application NO.. U 0637 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. Applicant shall prepare and submit precise development plans for Architectural
Review Commission review and approval. The plans shall include site layout, '
building design, landscaping, signing, lighting and .screening. -
2 All new utilities shall be underground: N
3. Applicant shall adjust to finish grade sewer manhole cover in easement across
lot at 1104 Iris Street to the approval of.the City Engineer.
4. Applicant shall install drainage improvements within easement across lot at 1104
Iris Street to the approval of the City Engineer.
5. The existing structure on site to remain shall be inspectedby the Chief Building
Inspector and Fire Marshal for code compliance prior to issuance of-any building
permits on lot at 1104 Iris Street,
6. Applicant shall install street trees on Iris Street frontage to the: approval of the
Public Services Deoartment and Architectural Review. Commission.
7. A fence height exception in required street yard setback on lot at 1104 Iris Street
Ois hereby granted as shown on approved plan..
All dwelling units (three total on lot at 1104 Iris and tbree total on lot at 1110
8.
Iris) shall be limited to one bedroom each as shown on approved plans. No partitions,
permanent or temporary, shall divide approved one-bedroom space into two spaces.
or bedrooms.
9. Use permit approval shall not become effective until final abandonment of apott?on
of Henry Street between Iris Street and the S.P.R.R. tracks has taken place and final
Parcel Map. No. 77-227 is filed, approved, and recorded. Failure to meet the above
prerequisites shall void use permit approval.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the motion by Commissioner do{iansen, seconded by Commr. Breaks.
VOTING: Aye - Commits. .1ohansen, Breska, Schneider, Miller, and Fonte
Noe - None
Abstain - Commr. Kraus
Absent - None
Henry Engen, Secretary ,
Planning Commission of the
FILE COPY City of San Luis Obispo
DATED: November 16, 1977
4-47
Hpr 11 01 01 : 54p CYDNEY HOLCOMB 605-594-0365 p.2
ATTACHMENT a
i1! oTV IL 441ffir!n�
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604•San Luis Obispo. CA 93406
April 11, 2001
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 973401 Faxed to: 781-7173
Re: 1110 Iris Street
Meeting Date: 4/11/01, Item #1
Dear Chairman Peterson and Planning Commission Members;
RQN has reviewed the staff report, attachments, and the applicable zoning regulations in
this matter. The case involves wall partitions that were built, without a permit or City
approval, dividing one room into two rooms, in five of the six units on the above-
mentioned property. The appellant contends that the new room is not being used as a
"bedroom". In applying the definition of other rooms that are not bedrooms, these
second rooms appear to us to have all of the earmarks of being additional bedrooms. In
our opinion, this is a clear violation of the residential density standards contained in the
City's zoning regulations. (MC§17.16.010).
The appellant has asked for relief by way of a covenant, which would allow him to retain
the room divisions by limiting the number of persons residing in the units. We find this
totally unacceptable. The City density standards are based on the number of bedrooms,
not the number of people. Limiting occupancy, as we know very well can raise serious
constitutional issues. Also, allowing an exception of this type would, as very clearly
stated by staff in their report, create an undesirable precedent and compromise the
City's ability to effectively regulate the intensity of residential development.
Because the Planning Commission does not have authority to grant an appeal that would
be contrary to the City's zoning regulations, we,urge you to deny this appeal and uphold
the Community Development Director's action, which denied the request to allow five
one-bedroom apartment units to remain illegally converted to two-bedroom apartments.
Sincerely,
Cydney Holcomb
Chairperson, RQN
►►���iii �����►►� IIIII p���ii viii �
111111 III
city of sAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
May 25, 2001
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DEMAREE RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY DETERMINA TION(OTHER 33-01)1110 IRIS STREET
The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the appeal of a
Planning Commission Denial of Demaree Residential.Density Determination (Other 33-01) 1110
Iris Street.
The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday,June 5,2001
beginning at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at City.Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is
welcome to attend and comment.Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed
before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
The agenda report,including recommendation by staff, will be available for review in the
City Clerk's Office(Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting.
For more information,please contact Pam Ricci of the Co nit Development
Department at 781-7168.
Lee Price, C.M.C.
City Clerk
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
'9-� 6
FILE NUMBER:33-01 FILE NUMBER:33-01 FILE NUMBER:33-01
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1124 GEORGE 1906 HENRY 1110 IRIS# 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA,93401-4114 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4103 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4105
FILE NUMBER:33-01 FILE NUMBER:33-01 FILE NUMBER:33-01
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
11101RIS# 2 11101RIS# 3 11101RIS# 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4105 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4105 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4105
FILE NUMBER:33-01 FILE NUMBER:33-01 FILE NUMBER:33-01
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
11101RIS# 5 11101RIS# 6 1121 IRIS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4105 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4105 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4117
FILE NUMBER:33-01 FILE NUMBER:33-01 FILE-NUMBER:33-01
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
1127 IRIS 1011 RAILROAD 1021 RAILROAD# A
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4117 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 4449 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-4449
FILE.NUMBER:33-01 003-572-005/FILE#:33-01 003-572-002/FILE#:33-01
OCCUPANT AALTO JOHAN TRE BARTELS JUDITH
Ken Hunter,Manager Signal Maintenance PO BOX 29303 1124 GEORGE ST
341 North D Street LA CA 90029- SLO CA 93401-4114
Lompoc,CA 93436
003-571-018/FILE_ #:33-01 003-554022/FILE#:33-01 003-571-016/FILE#:33-01
BRAZIL LEE A BURKE DAVID L ETAL DEMAREE MICHAEL S TRE ETAL
572 FOOTHILL BLVD 19A 4978 SAN MARCOS CT PO BOX 262
SLO CA 93405-1626 SANTA BARBARA CA 93111 PORTERVILLE CA 93258-0262
003-571-017/FILE#:33-01 003-573-015/FILE#:33-01 003-573-017/FILE#:33-01
DEMAREE MICHAEL S TRE ETAL DURAN HENRY TRE ETAL EDWARDS ERIC N TRE ETAL
4 PINEWOOD 1105 GEORGE ST PO BOX 14804
IRVINE CA 92604 SLO CA 93401-4113 SLO CA 93406-4804
003573-021/FILE#:33-01 003572-014/FILE#:33-01 003-571-009/FILE#:33-01
ENGELSKIRGER CHAD EVANS JOHN W&SARA J FASTLABEN CHARLES J&KATHERINE M ETAL
4177 W KELLEY 1136 GEORGE ST 3436 RANCHO RIO BONITA RD
FRESNO CA 93722-9712 SLO CA 93401-4114 COVINA CA 91724
003.568-002/FILE#:33-01 003572-012/FILE#:33-01 003-573-0221FILE#:33-01
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A CA GALLION JANNE.ETAL GANTENBEIN ROB A&MAMINKA A
1911 JOHNSON AVE PO BOX 2156 2015 B SWAZEY ST
SLO CA 93401-4197 AVILA BEACH CA 93424 SLO CA 93401-
1
003-571-011/FILE#:33-01 003-572-003/FILE#:33-01 003-573-020/FILE#:33-01
GONZALES ROBERT M GOUBEAUX SUSAN K HAIDET S MARCUS&BETSY J
15356TH ST 1127 IRIS ST 1681 8TH ST
LOS OSOS CA 93402-1616 SLO CA 93401-4117 LOS OSOS CA 93402-2201
003572-009/FILE#:33-01 003-571-008/FILE#33-01 003-572-010/FILE#:33-01
HYER GEOFF&REBECCA JEFFREY DAVID A&O DEBORAH KAPLAN AARON P ETAL
1907 RUTH ST 1128 IRIS 1911 RUTH ST
SLO CA 93401-4146 SLO CA 93401-4118 SLO CA 934014109
003-656-01 O/FILE#:33-01 003572-004/FILE#:33-01 003-572-013/FILE#33-01
LAMPMAN CHRISTOPHER I LIMON ML MCCOLLUM CRAIG R&CHERYL L
PO BOX 13628 1128 GEORGE 1333 MILL ST
SLO CA 934065628 SLO CA 93401-4114 SLO CA 93401-2816
003573-018/FILE#33-01 003-654-007/FILE#:33-01 003.572-01SIR LE#33-01
MICHELS LINDA S TRE MORRIS CECIL M TRE ETAL SANCHEZ ROBERTO JR&JENNIFER L
1103 GEORGE ST 1063 GEORGE ST 1906 HENRY ST
SLO CA 93401-4113 SLO CA 93401-4111 SLO CA 93401-4143
003571-014/FILE#33-01 003573-016/FILE#:33-01 003.573-004/FILE#:33-01
STANFORD BARBARA TRE STEWART SUSAN TRE SWART RON TRE
1140 IRIS ST 1116 ELLA ST 1127 B GEORGE ST
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-4118 SLO CA 934014106 SLO CA 93401-
003573.003/FILE#:33-01 003-573-007/FILE#:3301 003-573-008/FILE#:33-01
WEDDLE THOMAS A WESTWICK.BARBARA WHITE RICHARD E&CHRISTY W
1121 GEORGE 5555 LOS OSOS VALLEY RD 1318 HOLLY AVE
SLO CA 93401-4113 SLO CA 93405-7831 LOS ALTOS CA 94024-
003-654-008/FILE#:33-01
WURSTER ROBERT TRE ETAL
1601 HANSEN LN
SLO CA 93401-7969
I I i
05/24/01 13:25:29 Sstendah Label List Page 1
Occupants 0 meters
File Number. O 33-01 Source Address: 1110 IRIS ST O Owners 100 meters
Occupants
OCCUPANT 0'REMNANT non-mail
OCCUPANT 1124 GEORGE
OCCUPANT 1906 HENRY
OCCUPANT 1101 IRIS non-mail
OCCUPANT 1104 IRIS non-mail
OCCUPANT 1110 IRIS non-mail
OCCUPANT 1110 IRIS# 1
OCCUPANT 1110 IRIS# 2
OCCUPANT 1110 IRIS# 3
OCCUPANT 1110 IRIS# 4
OCCUPANT 1110 IRIS# 5
OCCUPANT 1110 IRIS# 6
OCCUPANT 1121 IRIS
OCCUPANT 1127 IRIS
OCCUPANT 1128 IRIS duplicate
OCCUPANT 1011 RAILROAD
OCCUPANT 1021 RAILROAD# A
OCCUPANT Ken Hunter,Manager Signal Maintenance 341 North D Street(for 1021 RAILROAD)
Owners
AALTO JOHAN TRE PO BOX 29303(for 1135 IRIS)
BARTELS JUDITH 1124 GEORGE ST
BRAZIL LEE A 572 FOOTHILL BLVD 19A(for 1901 HENRY)
BURKE DAVID L ETAL 4978 SAN MARCOS CT(for 1731 SANTA ROSA)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (940) ATTN:ADMINISTRATION 990 PALM ST(for 1820 OSOS) non-mail
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (940) ATTN:ADMINISTRATION 990 PALM ST(for 1100 IRIS) non-mail
DEMAREE MICHAEL S TRE ETAL PO BOX 262(for 1110 IRIS)
DEMAREE MICHAEL S TRE ETAL 4 PINEWOOD(far 1104 IRIS)
DURAN HENRY TRE ETAL 1105 GEORGE ST
EDWARDS ERIC N TRE ETAL PO BOX 14804(for 2028 HENRY)
ENGELSKIRGER CHAD 4177 W KELLEY(for 1144 ELLA)
EVANS JOHN W&SARA J 1136 GEORGE ST
FASTLABEN CHARLES J&KATHERINE M 3436 RANCHO RIO BONITA RD(for 1136 IRIS)
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A 1911 JOHNSON AVE(for 1615 FAIRVIEW)
FRENCH HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER A 1911 JOHNSON AVE(for 1800 RUTH) duplicate
GALLION JANNE ETAL PO BOX 2156(for 1148 GEORGE)
GANTENBEIN ROB A&MAMINKA A 2015 B SWAZEY ST(for 1129 GEORGE)
GANTENBEIN ROB A&MAMINKA A 2015 B SWAZEY ST(for 1133 GEORGE) duplicate
GONZALES ROBERT M 1535 6TH ST(for 1156 IRIS)
GOUBEAUX SUSAN K 1127 IRIS ST
HAIDET S MARCUS&BETSY J 1681 8TH ST(for 1156 ELLA)
HYER GEOFF&REBECCA 1907 RUTH ST
JEFFREY DAVID A&O DEBORAH 1128 IRIS(for 0'REMNANT) duplicate
JEFFREY DAVID A&O DEBORAH 1128 IRIS
KAPLAN AARON P ETAL 1911 RUTH ST
LAMPMAN CHRISTOPHER I PO BOX 13628(for 1034 GEORGE)
LIMON ML 1128 GEORGE
MCCOLLUM CRAIG R&CHERYL L 1333 MILL ST(for 1139 IRIS)
MICHELS LINDA S TRE 1103 GEORGE ST
MORRIS CECIL M TRE.ETAL 1063 GEORGE ST
SANCHEZ ROBERTO JR&JENNIFER L 1906 HENRY ST
STANFORD BARBARA TRE 1140 IRIS ST
STEWART SUSAN TRE 1116 ELLA ST
SWART RON TRE 1127 B GEORGE ST
05/24/01 13:25:30 Sstendah Label List — Page 2
Occupants 0 meters
File Number. O 33-01 Source Address: 1110 IRIS ST O Owners 100 meters
Union Pacific Railroad Union Pacific Railroad 1416 Dodge Street(for 1011 RAILROAD) non-mail
WEDDLE THOMAS A 1121 GEORGE
WESTWICK BARBARA 5555 LOS OSOS VALLEY RD(for 1151 GEORGE)
WHITE RICHARD E&CHRISTY W 1318 HOLLY AVE(for 1183 GEORGE)
WURSTER ROBERT TRE ETAL 1601 HANSEN LN(for 1069 GEORGE)
48 labels printed on 05/24/01 at 13:25:30 by Sstendah
o
O 33-01 Appeal of directors decision on housing density requirements
nY
V
O
\
,
,
~<
!
Solid = Owner and Occupant
Diagonal Lines= Occupant Only
Cross Hatch = Owner Only
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GEODATA SERVICES
955 MORRO STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401
805)781-7167 05/24/01 13:25
Department oommun
f Ci .Vemen
ld t City of San Luis Obispo
p p 990 Palm Street
Planning Application San Luis Obispo; CA 93401
805 781-7172
Project Address 1110 IRIS Parcel# 003-571-016
Legal Description CY SLO PM 26166 PAR A
Zoning 1 R-2-S Zoning 2
Property Owner DEMAREE MICHAEL S TRE ETAL
In Care Of
Owner Address PO BOX 262
PORTERVILLE CA 93258-0262
Applicant Name MICHAEL DEMAREE Day Phone(949)551-1842
Address 4 PINEWOOD IRVINE CA 92604
Representative Day Phone( )
Address
Send correspondence to X applicant representative owner other(see file)
Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Planning Services Summary
Application# Type of Application Received Fee
O 33-01 Appeal of directors decision on housing density 03705/01 $o
requirements
Total fees $0
Received By RONALD WHISENAND
Fee Paid by
Assigned planner PAM RICCI
Hearings O PC Hearing 03/28/01
- RECEIVED
APR 2 3 2001
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SLO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as specified in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (attached), the undersigned hereby appeals the
decision of /�Gz��n
rendered on3 D/ which consisted of the
following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed.)
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
The appellant agrees to appear and/or send a representative to appear on his/her
behalf.
(Signature of Appellant)
Name/Title Mailing Address and Zip Code
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address and Zip Code
This item is hereby calendared for
C: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head
City Clerk(original)
(f/Z2J's'L .
(3101)
M 0 R H1 S ON - D EM A RE E T ti u. s il
3 ULY 3. 1995 RECEIVED
4 fel NEWOOD- IRVINE CA 929604 -TH-90-7)51.1142-FAX 949.551.6855
APR 2 3 2001
S. Dl mare, aud Naiwu(-� 11. Doj11W'e0
SLO CITY.CLERK j
The City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
April 18, 2001
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OF -
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 530941
1 The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant appreciates the very complete and accurate
Planning Staff report prepared by Ms. Ricci.
2. In all aspects of this appeal, the appellant declares fu,11 recognition and support for the city's right and
duty to control the density of population within the city both in new and existing structures.
3. The original appeal of the denial of appellant's request to allow division of single bedrooms into two
bedrooms was based on the fact that the present rules and regulations do not adequately address .
the question of Odensity , and we should therefore look towards the"intent'of the density regulations.-
4. The Planning Commission did not feel empowered to consider"intent". In the words of the Chairman
of the Planning Commission at the close of the appeal, by appellant's recollection, "it is clear that the
rules and regulations governing density are seriously flawed, but they are all we have so we must
abide by them.0
5. We live in a system where flaws can and should be remedied.
6. The purpose of this appeal is to encourage the City Council to change the basis of the density
regulations from'units determined by the number of bedrooms"to"units determined by the total
square footage designated for sleeping purposes".
7. Example of density based on "units determined by number of bedroomso on R-2 land at 12 units per
acre:
a. A single large bedroom of say 12'x 25', which under the Uniform Housing Code could
sleep five people, counts as.66 unit.
b. Two small bedrooms of say 12 x 12'6m each, which under the Uniform Housing Code could
sleep a total of five people, counts as I unit.
c. Therefore, using single large bedrooms(.66 units)there could be 18 dwellings per acre,
each with nine people, for a density total of 90 people per acre.
d. Or, using two small bedrooms(I unit)there could be 12 dwellings per acre, each with five
people, for a density total of 60 people per acre.
l
8. Let us now suppose that as an alternative, the City Council were to establish as a base, "for
sleeping, 120 square feet for the first two people and 50 square feet for every person
thereafter" and that"sleeping space for 5 people would comprise 1 unit' (or any other numbers
that staff might feel would be appropriate).
9. Example of density based on"units determined by the total square footage designated for sleeping
purposes°, on R-2 land at 12 units per acre:
a. A single large bedroom of 300 square feet(12'x 25'), which under the Uniform Housing
Code could sleep five people, counts as 1 unit.
b. Two small bedrooms of 150 square feet each(12'x 12'6"), 300 square feet total, which
under the Uniform Housing Code could sleep a total of five people,counts as 1 unit.
c. Therefore, using a single large 300 square foot bedroom(1 unit)there could be 12
dwellings per acre, each with 5 people, for a density total of 60 people per acre.
d. Or, using two small 150 square foot bedrooms(1 unit)there could be 12 dwellings per
acre, each with five people, for a density total of 60 people per acre.
10. The greater equity is immediately obvious, particularly as it may relate to the demographics of age,
income, ethnicity or race, vocation, tax base contribution, or community services use.
a. Regulations would no longer favor the wealthy who tend to demand larger rooms.
b. Regulations would no longer favor those with few or no children.
c. Regulations would no longer favor older or retired persons
d. Regulations would no longer favor those with greater disposable income.
e. Regulations would no longer discourage development of affordable housing.
f. Regulations would no longer discourage development of work force housing.
g. Regulations would no longer discourage development of housing for young families.
h. Regulations would no longer discourage development of adequate student housing.
11. Please see the real example attached, showing a designated sleeping space as one large bedroom,
as approved with the original land use permits provided by Ms. Ricci, and the same space divided
into two bedrooms. There is clearly no difference in the resulting density. There is only a difference
in the convenience and utility of the space for the residents. And of course, a difference in the
number of units as defined under the present regulations.
2
RECOMMENDATION
A. That the City Council direct the staff of the Community Development Department to study and
recommend the most appropriate density dwelling unit standards relying primarily on"square
footage assigned for sleeping"rather than the number of bedrooms.
B. That all actions relating to density standards, including this appeal, be tabled and held in
abeyance until that study is complete and appropriate action taken.
C. That the City Council hold public hearings on the recommended new standards.
D. That the City Council then codify more effective and equitable density standards based on the
recommendations of the Planning Department staff and input from the community.
Respectfully submitted.
Michael S. Demaree
3
M 0 .11 R I S (1) N - D H. M. A, R Pj 1 j TR, U S rj,
4PINEWOOD-7RVENE CA
Nlich,,Vl S. I)en),irc4aaml NHijetio, .M.
The City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
April 18, 2001
ATTACHMENT
TO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OF
PLANMNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 5309-01
(ATTACHMENT IS THREE PAGES TOTAL INCLUDING THIS PAGE)
The purpose of this Attachment is to show, by real and not hypothetical circumstance, that the'number
of bedrooms" definition as presently used in lam and regulations regarding density in the City of San
Luis Obispo may not in any way reflect the gin facto probable number of occupants of a living unit.
Both drawings refer to five of the group of six units comprising the 11041110 Iris complex.
At present the six units of the 11041110 Iris complex are occupied as follows: in Unit 1, two persons;
Unit 2, two persons; Unit 3, one person; Unit 4, one person; Unit 5, one person; Unit 6, two persons. The
total occupancy of the complex is nine persons. There are 11 parking spaces, and generous gardens,
trees, and landscaped areas.
Drawing"K is the unmodified copy of the floor plan used by Ms. Ricci as part of the Staff Report This
drawing shows the typical upstairs bedroom as originally approved and built in the 11041110 Iris
complex. The one large bedroom is approximately 25' long, and varies in width from approximately 11' to
approximately 13'. If the single bed shown in the upper area were replaced with a double or queen size
bed, the approved large bedroom could easily accommodate four persons.
Drawing aB' is a modified copy of the floor plan used by Ms. Ricci as part of the Staff Report. This
drawing shows how the non-supporting partition, closet, and doorway were typically added to the
upstairs bedroom in five of the units in the 1104-1110 Iris complex. Each resulting sleeping area is
approximately 11'x 12'. If the single bed shown in the upper area were replaced with a double or queen
size bed, each area might accommodate two persons for a total of four persons. In practice in the 1104-
1110 Iris complex, one or two persons sleep in one of the partitioned areas, and the other area is used
for computer equipment and work desks, clothes storage, and such.
It is clearly demonstrated that whether one large bedroom or two small bedrooms are formed in each
unit, the probable maximum number of persons in occupancy will remain unchanged.
The density gin fact"will remain unchanged.
The use of"number of bedrooms"as a density criterion is clearly ineffective and misleading.
' Apr-18-01 12 :29P City of SLO-CD Dept. 805 781 7173 P.02
a � I
A.
a' a e.tI .i:- #'A' . _74
MEW
f I� k7�+
0 1
F•.
dn:
bedro: . M
rIF
1
i .1.
rr
:iGSJ -
upper lev;B'i
' Apr- 18-01 12: 29P City of SLO-CD Dept. BOB 781 7173 P.02
north
!
d
. "be d r cc�:a-m
4 ,
L
a edrapm t
All
El
upper 1evo1
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5309-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on April 11, 2001, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application O
33-01, Michael Demaree, applicant/appellant.
ITEM REVIEWED:
Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of a request to allow
unauthorized bedroom conversions to remain, in violation of City density standards
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1110 Iris Street
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has
established existence of the following circumstances:
Findings
1. Allowing the five two-bedroom units at the site to remain results in an overall project
density of 5.66 units. This is in direct violation of the City's zoning regulations
(Section 17.16.010), which allow 4.28 units at the site (0.36 acre x 12 units/acre =
4.28 units).
2. Allowing the five two-bedroom units at the site to remain would constitute a grant of
special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties
in the vicinity with the same zoning, given that other development projects in the
immediate area have been required to maintain their approved number of bedrooms,
consistent with density standards.
3. The five one-bedroom units as shown on the originally approved plans were illegally
converted to two-bedroom units without a building permit and City approval..
Resolution No. 5252-99
Page 2
4. As included in Condition No. 8 of Use Permit U0637, the original Planning
Commission use permit approving the project in 1977, all dwelling units at the site
were limited to one bedroom each, and no partitions, permanent or temporary, were
allowed to divide approved one-bedroom space into two spaces or bedrooms.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that O 33-01 be denied, and the following
must occur:
1. The applicant shall submit plans to the Building Division and obtain a building permit
to remove the added wall and door down the center of the upper floor of five of the
units to create conforming one-bedroom apartments by May 11,2001.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by
Commissioner Caruso, and on the following roll call vote:
AYE S: Commrs. Caruso, Aiken, Peterson, Loh, Osborne and Boswell
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
John Mandeville, Secretary
Planning Commission
Dated: April 11, 2001
���� II IIII I IIIIII �IIIII
IIIIIII IIII
city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
May 25, 2001
Michael Demaree
4 Pinewood
Irvine, CA 92604
SUBJECT: Demaree Residential Density Determination
1110 Iris Street(Other 33-01)
Dear Applicant:
The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of a
Planning Commission denial of Demaree Residential Density Determination (Other 33-
01), 1110 Iris Street.
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 5, 2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Other hearings may be
held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For additional information or questions concerning this item, please contact the
Community Development Department at 781-7169. The Council agenda report with
recommendation by staff will be sent to you on the Wednesday before the meeting.
Please call the City Clerk's ce at 781-7102 if you would prefer to pick up the agenda
report.
1
Si C y,I
i
Lee Price, CMC
City Clerk
c: Pam Ricci
/O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. a1
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.