HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/2002, PH 3 - 520 GRAND AVE (A 90-02) HIGH OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION APPEAL SCHEDULED OCTOBER Grand Avenue Properties RECEIVED
2602 El Cerrito 0 C T — 4 2002
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 514-2600 SLO CITY CLERK
October 4, 2002
RED FILE
Lee Price, City Clerk MEETING AGENDA
City of San Luis Obispo DA / 0 ITEM # rLL
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: 520 Grand Ave (A 90-02)High Occupancy Residential Use Permit Application Appeal Scheduled
October 15, 2002 Before the San Luis Obispo City Council
Dear Lee:
Grand Avenue Properties and Stephen & Janine Barasch, on behalf of the Barasch Family Revocable Trust,
the legal owners of the 520 Grand Avenue property respectfully request a postponement of the previously
scheduled October 15, 2002 Appeal Hearing before the San Luis Obispo City Council until the December 3,
2002 Council meeting.
We are making this formal request due to the fact that we are traveling to Chicago, III for family business
between October 10, 2002 and October 15, 2002 and are not sure that we can be present at the previously
scheduled October 15, 2002 Council meeting due to our required flight connection schedule. Additionally,
we will be traveling during the two (2) previously scheduled City Council meeting dates during the month of
November, 2002, but will return to San Luis Obispo prior to the currently planned December 2002 Council
hearing date. (The first Council hearing date of December, 2002.
Please advise us if this postponement request is approved by the San Luis Obispo City Council and/or other
San Luis Obispo City Departments at your earliest convenience.
We anticipate your timely response to our request at your earliest opportunity as we are living San Luis
Obispo October 10, 2002 on an early morning flight and cannot be easily reached until we return to San Luis
Obispo on October 16,2002.
Respectfully yours,
cz
Step en B. Barasch, Administrator Jan N. Barasch, Administrator
Of the Barasch Family Revocable Trust 0 e Barasch Family Revocable Trust
Cc Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Citv_ Attorney &COU m L Cid aDD DIR
City of San Luis Obispo Qr.�.CAO ❑ FIN DIR
LI ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Ronald WT-isenand, Secretary G-ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
C9-CLEMORIG [.:; POLICE CHF
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission and ODE H 05 L REC DIR
Deputy Community Development Director—Development Review ❑ UTIL DIR
µ13'P
1771 HR DIR
I I
council Mfttw Dat. ;
j acEnda REpont L®Nub. M
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Direc
Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A
PROPOSED HIGH-OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT FOR
EIGHT ADULTS ON 520 GRAND AVENUE (A 90-02).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and the request for a high-occupancy residential use permit, based on the
Planning Commission recommendation,with modified findings provided by staff.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The appellant applied for a use permit to allow eight adults to occupy a single-family residence.
The existing residence on the project site is a five-bedroom, 1,715 square-foot home. The
applicant is proposing to build a detached, two-story building with 765 square feet of floor area
to provide three more bedrooms. The Planning Commission denied the permit application
because they found the proposal to be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the R-1 zone
and because they determined that the design of the detached bedrooms is architecturally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood. According to the appeal letter, the appellant
believes the permit should be approved because the proposal meets all of the performance
standards included in the ordinance. Staff is recommending that the Council deny the appeal,
based on the Planning Commission recommendation, with modified findings provided by staff.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
On August 16, 2002, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing to consider
the proposed use permit. The Hearing Officer concluded that a higher level of review would be
appropriate, and referred the item to the Planning Commission for consideration, pursuant to
Section 17.58.030.A.3 of the Zoning Regulations. On September 11, 2002, the Planning
Commission reviewed the project and denied the request, based on findings(Attachment 6).
The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on September 13, 2002,
and the item was scheduled for the next available City Council agenda(Attachment 8).
3-I
Council Agenda Report
A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 520 Grand Avenue
Applicant/Property Owner: Steven B. Barasch, AIA,APA
Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential)
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental status: Categorically exempt(CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15303)
Site Description
The project site is in the R-1 zone and is developed with a five bedroom house (Attachment 1).
The property includes 150 feet of frontage on Loomis Street and 60 feet of frontage on Grand
Avenue. The property has a detached, two-car garage that is accessed from Loomis Street. The
site is immediately adjacent to Highway 101, and east of the Grand Avenue southbound on-ramp.
Similar single-family residential development is located across Loomis Street, to the north of the
project site. South of Highway 101 are higher density residential zones, where development is
characterized by large and small apartment buildings, generally supporting Cal Poly and Cuesta
College students.
Proiect Description
The appellant is requesting a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eights adults to
live in a single-family home. The project includes a proposal to construct a detached building
with three additional bedrooms (Attachment 2). Parking for seven vehicles would be provided
on site; two parking spaces would be located in the existing garage, three parking spaces would
be located in a carport under the proposed building, and two uncovered spaces would be
developed in the yard, outside of the setback area. The proposed parking surface would be grass
crete, which provides for a reinforced parking surface that has the appearance of a grass lawn.
The parking area would be screened by an existing ivy-covered fence along Loomis Street. The
project plan was revised after the Planning Commission hearing with a new side entry to the
house, to provide convenient access to the main residence for occupants of the detached
bedrooms. The plan change addresses concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting
that the two buildings would not function together as a single living unit.
Evaluation
This evaluation includes background information on the Commission's findings, a discussion of
the appeal filed by the applicant, background information on the High-Occupancy Use
Regulations, and a discussion of neighborhood input provided to date. Overall, the issue of
neighborhood compatibility is central to the discussion.
3—Z
f
Council Agenda Report
A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Page 3
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission made the following three findings in support of their action to deny
the proposed High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit:
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, as stated in the
Zoning Regulations (SLOMC Section 17.24.010), because of the proposed
occupancy level.
2. The project design does not provide convenient or reasonable access from the
detached bedrooms to the kitchen area of the main residence, which increases the
likelihood that the study area will be converted into a kitchen.
3. The project architecture is not compatible with development in the neighborhood
because there are no other two-story buildings with detached bedrooms in the
vicinity.
The Zoning Regulations state that the R-1 zone is intended "to provide housing opportunities for
people who want private open space associated with individual dwellings," and "to preserve
existing single-family neighborhoods." With finding#1, the Commission expressed a belief that
the proposed occupancy level, and the presence of the large, detached bedroom structure, would
not preserve the existing single-family character of the zoning district. The Commission's
discussion noted concerns that the proposal to construct a detached building with three bedrooms
would be precedent setting and could result in approval of similar projects in traditionally single-
family neighborhoods (Attachment 6).
Finding #2 was made in response to public testimony and a review of the floor plan of the main
residence, which showed there was no rear entry to the main house. Occupants of the detached
building would therefore need to walk over 150 feet to access the front door of the house and
utilize the common household facilities, such as the kitchen, dining room and den. Because of
this inconvenience, the Commission believed that conversion of the detached building to a
second dwelling, through the provision of cooking facilities, would be a likely response by future
tenants. The applicant has now revised the project plans to provide a side entry to the house.
The redesign is reflected on the plans submitted to the City Council and staff believes that the
modification adequately addresses the Commission's concern.
The Commission was concerned with the appearance of the proposed detached bedrooms to the
point that they determined that the proposed architecture is not compatible with existing
development in the neighborhood. This finding also reflects a discussion of General Plan Land
Use Element Policy 2.2.10: Compatible Development. The policy states that "new buildings
should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood ... architectural character, in
terms of size, spacing and variety." The adjacent R-1 neighborhood, to the north of the project
site, includes a range of architectural building styles, but does not include large detached
buildings that are visible from the street. There are no two story buildings in the neighborhood
i
Council Agenda Report
A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Page 4
that are detached from the main residence and that have additional bedrooms. The proposed
building is the first of its kind.
Appeal
The appeal filed by the applicant states that the proposed project "meets or exceeds all of the
presently defined requirements of the High-Occupancy regulations with the San Luis Obispo
Zoning Ordinance including the strict performance standards within Section 17.93" (Attachment
8). This is a technically true statement and was the basis for the staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission to approve the project. The Planning Commission, however, acted on the
premise that the proposal to develop the detached bedroom skirts the intent of the ordinance
because the applicant has designed the project to meet the ordinance requirements, instead of
designing the project to be architecturally compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
The appeal also states that the "Commission's split decision reinforced the fact that all of the
Commissioners felt the 520 Grand Avenue property was well suited to higher density residential
uses due to the site's proximity to existing R-4 land uses, the US 101 highway and on-ramps, but
were somewhat uncomfortable approving a project which `could' affect other R-1 or R-2
residential sites within the City" (Attachment 8). During the discussion, Commissioners did
indicate that it would be more appropriate to re-zone the project site in order to provide for
higher density, but re-zoning was not an available alternative for the Commission with respect to
this application. The Commission did believe that the project would be precedent setting in a
City-wide context.
Background Information on the High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations
High-Occupancy Residential Use Permits are required whenever a single-family home is
occupied by more than 5 adults, age 18 or older. The City Council approved the enacting
ordinance for the regulations on October 17, 1989 (Attachment 3). The ordinance cited an
increase in the intensity of occupancy and the conversion of garages and other accessory
structures into living space as a problem in the R-1 and R-2 zones that had caused nuisances
relating to overcrowding, excess traffic, and vehicle parking. The ordinance states that the
burdens associated with such intensive uses cause unreasonable conflicts with neighbors' uses
and expectations, and other burdens and risks to public health, safety and welfare. The ordinance
includes a statement of consistency with the General Plan, and the Zoning Regulations require
ordinances to be applied in a manner consistent with the General Plan (SLOMC 17.02.050).
Since the ordinance was adopted, the City has received approximately 16 applications for High-
Occupancy permits. Five of those have been approved. Of the five permits that have been
approved, one has been revoked. The City continues to deal with approximately 8 complaints
per year regarding overcrowding and violations of the ordinance. Over half of the complaints
turn out to be unfounded, and no code enforcement action is necessary. Based on the number of
complaints received on average, it appears that the ordinance has been an effective tool for
deterring overcrowding and the associated nuisances.
3�
Council Agenda Report -
A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Page 5
Neighborhood Input and General Plan Policies for Neighborhood Preservation
City staff provides direct notification to Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) when new
applications for High-Occupancy Residential Uses are received. Staff routes project plans to
RQN so that they can provide early feedback to planning staff. Staff has received two letters
from RQN on the project, and RQN representatives have provided testimony at both public
hearings to date (Attachment 7). RQN's concerns regarding the project include a belief that the
proposal to build detached bedrooms is an attempt to circumvent the intent of the regulations,
which is to insure that homes with high-occupancy uses have adequate support facilities. RQN
has also stated that the proposed detached building is not a guest house, as it has been referred to
in the past by staff. The proposed building is not a guest house; but if the detached bedrooms are
approved, the restrictions that apply to guest houses (no refrigerator, cooking appliances, or
kitchen sink) should be applied in this case to insure that the building is not converted into a
second dwelling through the addition of cooking facilities.
Letters provided by both RQN and Carla Saunders, and public testimony provided by others,
state concerns with General Plan consistency (Attachment 7). RQN has stated that the project is
inconsistent with Land Use Element (LUE) policy LUE 2.2.10 and Housing Element Policy
7.2.1.
LU 2.2.10: Compatible Development
Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character
with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living
facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
A) Architectural Character: New buildings should respect existing buildings
which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of
size, spacing, and variety.
B)Privacy and Solar Access: New buildings will respect the privacy and solar
access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory
buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
Staff is recommending that the City Council find the project inconsistent with the above policy
on the basis that the proposed building is inconsistent with the architectural character of existing
buildings in the neighborhood. Based on the Planning Commission's action, no level of
Architectural Review could address the nature of the proposal, because the proposed detached
bedrooms have to be developed in their present configuration in order for the required parking to
be accommodated on the project site. Staff has informally surveyed the surrounding R-1
neighborhood and has not located any detached buildings with tuck-under parking, such as the
applicant is proposing. This style of development is more typical in the City's R-3 (Medium
High Density) and R-4 (High Density) residential zones.
3-.-
Council Agenda Report
A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Page 6
RQN also cites Housing Element (H) policy H 7.2.1 (Digest Numbering).
H 7.2.1: Character,Size,Density and Quality
Within established neighborhoods, new residential development must be of a
character, size, density, and quality that preserves the City's neighborhoods and
maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. (p21, Policy 1.27.1
of the Housing Element)
Staff is also recommending that the City Council find the project inconsistent with this Housing
Element policy. The project will not maintain the quality of life for existing and future residents
in this neighborhood because the larger than typical number of people living at the site would be
visible because they would be going to and from the detached rooms to the main portion of the
residence. It would also be precedent setting and could encourage other property owners to
develop their property in a similar fashion. As previously discussed, the intensity and character
of the proposed development is more typical of development in the City's higher density
residential zoning districts.
Conclusion
The City's Zoning Regulations are designed with the intent of implementing the General Plan. A
project that is consistent with all applicable zoning standards is typically,by extension,consistent
with the General Plan. However, unique circumstances can arise, which is why the City has the
discretionary review process where General Plan policies can be considered in more detail. In
the case of the subject appeal, the determination of compatibility and neighborhood preservation
is a subjective one. This was one of the factors in the Hearing Officer's determination to give the
original permit a higher level of review before the Planning Commission. The subjectivity is
also evidenced by the split vote by the Planning Commission. The process has accomplished the
intended purpose of providing substantial input on the key policy interpretations involved. Based
upon this input; staff has changed its recommendation on the proposed High-Occupancy
Residential Use Permit.
Although the project is consistent with the performance standards contained in the High-
Occupancy Residential Use Regulations, consideration of related General Plan policies is a
critical step in the review process because there is no way to anticipate the different methods a
developer might use to meet these standards. In this case, the property owner is proposing to rent
the home to eight adults, but in order to meet the floor area requirement of the ordinance (300
square feet per adult occupant) a two-story, detached building with 765 square feet of floor area
is proposed. At 1,715 square feet the existing house is adequate for five adults, but would not be
large enough for any additional occupants based on the floor area requirement of the ordinance.
While the ordinance does not preclude building new floor area to accommodate additional
residents, the method proposed in this case provides for a building that is more typical of higher
density residential areas, and is incompatible with single-family neighborhoods. The permit
should be denied for these reasons.
3-�
Council Agenda Report --
A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Page 7
CONCURRENCES
The project has been routed to other City Departments for review and comment. The conditions
and code requirements in Ordinance `B" have incorporated the comments and requirements of
the Public Works Department, the Fire Department and the Building Division, if the project is
approved by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project will not have a measurable impact on the City's fiscal health. The City requires all
rental property owners to have Business Tax Certificates. Such a business tax certificate would
be required of the property owner whether the current project is approved or denied.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the proposed High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit. Approval of the use permit
should be based on findings if the Council determines that the proposed use is compatible
with the site and surroundings. Attachment 10 includes a draft resolution with findings,
conditions and code requirements for project approval.
2. Continue consideration of the project and provide direction to staff if new or additional
information is necessary in order make a decision on the project.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced Scale Project Plans
Attachment 3: Ordinance No. 1154 (1989 Series) adopting the High-Occupancy Residential
Use Regulations
Attachment 4: Administrative Hearing Minutes from August 16, 2002
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Agenda Report for 9-11-02 (without attachments)
Attachment 6: Planning Commission Resolution#5346-02 and Draft Planning Commission
Minutes from 9-11-02
Attachment 7: Citizen and neighborhood group correspondence
Attachment 8: Applicant's appeal to the City Council, dated 9-13-02
Attachment 9: Draft Resolution "A" denying the appeal, as recommended by the Planning
Commission with additional findings provided by staff
Attachment 10: Draft Resolution `B" upholding the appeal and approving the project
LJmcodronkoundl/520 Grand(A90-02).doc
3-7
- _ Attachment 1
MCCO=jril
Z
H I R-1-PD U)
w
0
R-1 1 w
H
FREDERICKS
>
z
LOOMIS
R-1 --�
Amy
ABBOTI-
R 1 R-3
WILSON R-4
R-4 C-T
R- GARFIELD
R-3
R-4
Vicinity Map A 90-02
® 30 0 30 60 Feet 520 Grand
3-8
• ° 4 I " {s�` I 1 N iR1 t 2
fj
il ais
° N ° u
t
1 � 'YFA
Y W .W 1.� .rV •C
E \ Cgs jT�j li
1
jr - N[ • � V .Y. I
t 7"
Cb
lllnr c
0 y1/ntr ....�aaa I n n.•nen• l�`j�l � n ti y N
1 .rM .OVL SSj(M:
00
."
i - ` i � 1 - _ •1 0 - _ - • 5 � I itI p O
• b �1.;t� a_- +S II_ Y_ � 2 -'�" v L. m
' F .�t��� tt• ' d� ri' �• � C � U
a
Lu z
L m J
W ----- •, y 2 41 -'r y
T.
4 ^�°
k.3�4W i" I W p t
( �' I I 4 to `
I Z )�, a m
ii 4.�
COi q- I 1 .YI W_ 't •I X71
n Z g I �„ a s
_ o ¢ t 1Lu C"4
ctt
�_ }I .. 11 a a
c i I
ICDX
le cc
rAc
-; •... wt aw ....w.n Ill I
IX
_ Q
' aro.a _- � La•�' � 5� „�.�wp , i� • w
.t•� —�3•. hltd� 'c�Fi �YRy;�.t=ww^ "s w � � _
F
tMo •.a�q ene3nr axruo --a• _
4 v m a Q
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE NO. 1154 (1989 Series)
HIGH OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings to
consider amending the zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq.�of the.
Government Code, and Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code; and_.
WHEREAS, an increase in the intensity of occupancy, and conversion of garages and
other accessory structures into living space in low density and medium density
residential zones has caused, and is likely to cause, problems relating to overcrowding,
excess traffic, automobile parking, and nuisances associated with such increased use; and
WHEREAS, the burdens associated with such intensive uses causes unreasonable
conflicts with neighbors' uses and expectations, and other burdens and risks to public
health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance
are consistent with the general plan and are necessary to protect the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the negative declaration on environmental impact with mitigation measures
is affirmed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 17.93 is hereby added to the zoning ordinance as follows:
HIGH OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS
Sections:
17.93.010 Purpose
17.93.020 Definition
17.93.030 General Requirements
17.93.040 Performance Standards
17.93.050 Administration
17.93.060 Periodic Review, Enforcement and Violations
1154 3aD
Attachment 3
Ordinance No. 1154 (1 989 Series)
R 1458
Page 2
17.93.010 Purpose
A. This chapter is intended to promote the quality of life in low density and medium
density residential neighborhoods by ensuring that dwellings provide adequate support
f acilities.
17.93.020 Definitions
A. "High Occupancy Residential Use" is any dwelling, other than a residential care
facility as defined in section 17.04.340 of this code, in the R-1 or R-2 zones when the
occupancy of the dwelling consists of six or more adults.
B. "Adult" means a person 18 years of age and older.
C. "Tandem parking" means the arrangement of parking where no more than two cars are
arranged in tandem, one in front of the other.
17.93.030 General requirements
A. Applicability. A high occupancy residential use is allowed in the R-1 and R-2 zones
subject to the performance standards set forth in section 17.93.040, below.
B. Relation to zone standards. Where this chapter does not contain a particular type of
standard or procedure, conventional zoning standards shall apply.
C. Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances
from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said
regulations for any use.
17.93.040 Performance standards
A. Upon approval of an administrative use permit, as defined by Chapter 17.58, a high
occupancy residential use may be established with occupancy of six or more adults. The
purpose of the use permit is to ensure compliance with the performance standards
described below, and to ensure the compatibility of the use at particular locations.
1. The dwelling must contain a minimum 300 square feet of gross floor area, less garage
area, per adult.
2. The parking requirement shall be the greater of: 1) The number of spaces required for
dwellings as described in Section 17.16.060. OR one off-street parking space per adult
occupant, less one.
3. The parking of one vehicle within a required street yard or setback is allowed.
Parking in other yards is prohibited.
3-�r
Attachment 3
Ordinance No. 1154 (1989 Series)
R 1458
Page 3
4. Each required parking space shall be of an all-weather surface.
5. Upon approval of the Community Development Director, parking may be provided in
tandem.
6. There shall be a minimum of one bathroom provided for every—three adult occupants.
7. The dwelling must meet all current building, health, safety and fire codes and have
been built with all required permits.
17.93.050 Administration
A. Permit requirement. For high occupancy residential uses with six or more adult
occupants, the applicant shall apply for and obtain an administrative use permit as
defined by zoning regulations. The applicant shall submit and certify the following
information as part of the application for an administrative use permit:
1. Address of dwelling.
2. A site plan which shows:
a. the entire boundary of the site as well as adjacent structures within 20 feet.
b. the number and location of off-street parking spaces.
C. the gross floor area of the dwelling in square feet.
d. the floor plan for the dwelling with the rooms clearly labeled.
3. The number of proposed adult occupants.
4. Owner's signature.
5. Any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.
17.93.060 Periodic review and enforcement
A. Periodic Review. High occupancy residential uses shall be reviewed annually to insure
compliance with the provisions of this section. The use permit shall be reviewed annually
for compliance with this chapter. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to
initiate the review and pay applicable fees.
B. Violations. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be the basis for
enforcement action by the city which may include revocation of a previously approved use
permit.
Attachment 3
Ordinance No. 1154 (1989 Series)
R1458
Page 4
SECTION 2. Section 17.04.222 is added as follows:
17.04.222 High Occupancy Residential Use
A "High Occupancy Residential Use" is any dwelling other than a-residential care
facility as defined in section 17.04.340 of this code, in the R-1 or R-2 zones when the
occupancy of the dwelling consists of six or more adults.
SECTION 3. Section 17.16.060 is amended as follows:
High occupancy residential use The parking requirement shall be the greater
of: 1. The number of spaces required for
dwellings. OR, 2. One off-street parking
space per adult occupant, less one.
SECTION 4. Section 17.22.010 is amended as follows:
Insert between Government agency offices and meeting rooms,and Home business:
R-t R-2 R-3 R- .GOs W' PF ,C-N C-C C-R C-T CS At
High Occupancy residential use D D
SECTION 6. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with
the ayes and noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same
Attachment 3
Ordinance No. 1154 (1989 Series)
R 1458
Page 5
shall go into effect at the expiration of ninety (90) days after its said final passage.
A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City
Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be
available to any interested member of the public.
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the
17th day of October, 1989, on motion of Councilmember Rappa, and seconded by
Councilmember Settle, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Rappa, Settle, Pinard
NOES: Reiss
ABSTAIN: Dunin
on un n
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Vo s
APPROVED:
City Ad inistrative Officer
it tto ey
Community Development Director
3��
Attachment 3
Ordinance No. 1154
FINALLY PASSED this 14th _ day of— November
19 89 on motion of Councilman Settle , seconded by
Coucilwoman Rappa and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Rappa and Pinard
NOES: Councilmember Reiss
ABSENT: Mayor Dunin
r Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
Uk
City C1 k Pam Voges
3a�
• Attachment 4
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY AUGUST 16, 2002
520 Grand Avenue. Use Permit Appl. A 90-02; Request for high occupancy residential
use permit to allow eight occupants; R-1 zone; Grand Avenue
Properties, applicant.
Tyler Corey presented the staff report stating the application includes a proposal to
allow a detached guesthouse with three bedrooms, and eight parking spaces. He noted
that the site is a comer lot, with 150-feet of street frontage on Loomis Street. He
indicated that the applicant is proposing to re-develop two existing driveway approaches
currently on Loomis Street to access the existing and proposed parking spaces, and
that there are no exceptions to the City's Parking and Driveway Standards that are
being asked for in association with this project.
Planner Corey explained the proposed guesthouse has been evaluated by staff for
consistency with the property development standards. He stated that the detached
bedrooms are permitted in R-1 zoning districts, but may not contain a refrigerator,
cooking appliances or a kitchen sink. He indicated that guesthouses are intended to be
used in conjunction with the primary residence that would contain a kitchen. He added
that according to plans that were submitted, the guesthouse has a service bar,
refrigerator and kitchen sink, which are not permitted. He noted that a condition has
been added to the project to eliminate those items.
Planner Corey noted two letters of opposition regarding the proposal had been received
which indicated concerns with the quality of life in the neighborhood, noise, traffic,
parking and population density. He felt the concerns raised in the letters were
legitimate, and noted that if the permit is approved, conditions of approval will be added
to ensure the use complies with City ordinances. He explained that future problems
with noise, in particular, can result in revocation of the use permit, which would be
reviewed by the Zoning Hearing Officer on an annual basis.
Planner Corey further explained the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit
regulations contain performance standards relating to gross floor area, parking, and
bathrooms, and it requires a minimum of 300 square feet per adult. He stated that this
application is lacking approximately five square feet of the 300 square foot requirement,
which would total 2400 square feet for eight adults. The applicant has indicated that he
could easily modify the new structure to gain the extra five square feet.
Pam Ricci, Hearing Officer, verified that in terms of new construction on the site, other
than what is needed to install the parking spaces, there would be a new residential
detached bungalow above the carport, and that the existing house has five bedrooms.
3/4
Attachment 4
Administrative Hearing Minutes
August 16, 2002
Page 2
Planner Corey stated that staff believes the project substantially complies with the
General Plan on such issues as privacy for occupants and neighbors, views toward the
project, adequate parking, and private outdoor space. He explained that the site is
somewhat isolated from the rest of the neighborhood, being bordered by one arterial
street, Highway 101, and Loomis Street. He added that the large frontage on Loomis
Street makes the proposed parking situation feasible at this location. He pointed out
that the site is on the fringe of the adjacent neighborhood, which makes noise and
parking impacts less likely to be a major, on-going problem.
Staff recommended approval of the high-occupancy residential use permit for eight
adults, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. Planner
Corey noted a substantial list of conditions were established, which he outlined.
The public hearing was opened.
Steve Barasch, applicant, felt he has met and/or exceeded all of the City's performance
criteria for the high occupancy permit requirements. He questioned the prohibition of a
sink, in addition to the bathroom fixtures. He said he has seen a number of detached
homes that have sinks that don't qualify as kitchens or ancillary kitchens, as long as
they do not contain cooking facilities. He has seen others that have drink bars or
serving bars but don't have cooking facilities. He asked for the rationale for this
requirement.
Pam Ricci verified that condition #9 states" the floor plan for the proposed guesthouse
shall be modified to eliminate the beverage service bar". She noted that the proposed
sink and refrigerator are specifically prohibited by the Zoning Regulations which goes
back to the definition of a guesthouse; the regulations specify that a separate accessory
structure that is designed, occupied, or intended for occupancy as sleeping and bathing
quarters only, do not contain a refrigerator, cooking appliances, or a kitchen sink, and is
intended to be used in conjunction with a primary residence that contains a kitchen.
She stated that the details of the floor plan will be evaluated if the use permit is
approved and a building permit is obtained.
Steve Barasch clarified that it would not be a kitchen sink, but a small bar sink, a place
where people can have drinks, but not a kitchen.
Planner Corey stated there were concerns by staff that some sort of makeshift kitchen
could go in if a sink were installed. He explained this is why there is a condition that
addresses this issue.
Steve Barasch presented a new color version of the plan, where all setbacks have been
resolved and five square feet has been added to the bungalow. He explained that
measurements were taken from the inside walls; if measurements were taken from the
center of the walls, it would be more than the required five square feet.
Attachment 4
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
August 16, 2002
Page 3
Cydney Holcomb, Chairperson of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, stated that
RON reviewed this application for a high occupancy use permit. Since the existing
single-story residence will not accommodate eight occupants, the applicant proposes to
build a new two-story detached rental unit, consisting of three bedrooms, three carports
and kitchen. She felt the applicant is relying on the Municipal Code, Chapter 17.93:
High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations, and the definition for Guesthouse,
contained in MC Section 17.04.221. RON submits the following comments:
The application for the high occupancy use permit is incomplete because the
information required under Section 17.93.050.A.2.d is missing. This section requires
that the applicant submit and certify, as part of the application for an Administrative Use
Permit, a site plan which shows the floor plan for the dwelling with the rooms clearly
labeled. A configured floor plan shown for the new structure was submitted, however no
configured floor plan has been provided for the existing residence. The only information
they have is the applicant's statement that it is an existing five-bedroom house. The
applicant also shows a new bedroom addition at the rear of the existing building. She
felt this information is somewhat conflicting and gives the appearance that there may be
another bedroom planned. Ms. Holcomb noted that over the years, RON has reviewed
many high occupancy permit requests. They have never seen one that did not provide a
floor plan drawn to scale, showing all bedrooms, bathrooms and common areas.
Pam Ricci asked about the above-mentioned information.
Planner Corey verified the existing data is not on the plans. He noted that several site
visits had been made by the project planner but he could not verify whether he had
been inside the existing house to validate the bedroom count.
Steve Barasch stated he has just completed a two-bedroom addition, with all required
permits submitted to the City, confirming five bedrooms in the existing house.
Cydney Holcomb stated that the public didn't have an opportunity to review that
information. With every application RON has reviewed in the past, they have been
given a to-scale site plan, with all bedrooms, etc. listed, along with all required items for
the high occupancy use permit. She felt insufficient information has been presented to
the public. She further detailed that the application is for eight occupants and the site
plan must show that adequate support facilities exist. RON submits that without the
required information provided on the site plan, the hearing officer will not be able to
make a determination that the support facilities do exist. She felt that if it's not on the
plan, she doesn't know how the determination could be made that the support facilities
exist.
Ms. Holcomb explained the guesthouse is defined by the code as "a separate
accessory structure that is designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as a sleeping
and bathing quarters only, that does not contain the restricted items", MC Section
17.04.221. As stated in the definition, guesthouses are accessory structures that are
3—/9
Attachment 4
Administrative Hearing Minutes
August 16, 2002
Page 4
subordinate to the principal structure. The code contains no other regulations or
guidelines that specifically govern either accessory structures or guesthouses. When no
appropriate regulations exist with provision, we must look for the intent of the provision
for direction. She felt the name and the language in the code section clearly implies that
the intent of the guesthouse provision is to provide structures for use by the occupants
of the principle residence and their guests. She did not feel the type of development
that the applicant has proposed complies with this definition. Guests are short-term
visitors, tenants are not. She felt a true guesthouse should be limited in size and
located in the interior, side, and rear yards where it will not be visible from the street.
Ms Holcomb asked why staff felt this proposal would not be feasible in a mid-block
situation where it could be hidden in the back, but find that it is acceptable on the street
side yard of a corner lot where it is extremely visible from the street. She felt this code
section was never intended to support the type of development the applicant is
proposing, and the proposal doesn't comply with H7.2.1 of the Housing Element, which
states: "New residential development must be of a character, size, density and quality
that preserves the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and
future residents." She felt that this proposal, if approved, would create a precedent for
unregulated development with no way to ensure land use compatibility and no way to
maintain the scale, density and character in existing neighborhoods. She felt the
request should be denied, based on the fact that the application was insufficient, and
that the proposed development is not appropriate in the R-1 zone. She suggested
pursuing direction from the City Council to establish regulations and guidelines for
accessory structures including guesthouses in the residential zones..
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, stated his general perspective is that this project is an
attempt to circumvent the City's Zoning Regulations as they pertain to secondary or
"granny" units. He felt the real issue is what the definition of guesthouse is. He felt the
Zoning Regulations definition is not very clear, but felt that if you look at what is allowed
in a "guest home," it's clearly not intended for long-term occupancy. He reiterated the
restrictions on the cooking facilities, refrigeration units, and sinks. He objected to the
proposal based on the following: 1) if the project is approved, the City is allowing a
dwelling that's going to be used for long-term use; 2) According to housing and urban
development guidelines, this project will be sub-standard housing; 3) There will be close
living in the unit, with no sinks, kitchen or cooking facilities. 4) The occupants will have
to leave the unit and walk downstairs into the main house for their cooking needs; 5)
There is a total disregard for community standards and values; 6) He noted Santa
Cruz's definition of a guest home and felt the City should be aware of how Santa Cruz
recognizes the potential for misuse.
Sandra Rowley spoke in opposition to the request. She felt the applicant has not
provided the configuration of the existing house, as required by City code, but only an
exterior sketch with all walls and rooms omitted. She felt this lack of detail makes the
current living arrangement appear more spacious. She noted it also looks like there is
another bedroom being added behind the fireplace.
3��/
Attachment 4
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
August 16, 2002
Page 5
Pam Ricci asked Steve Barasch if the extra bedroom was part of the plans he was
trying to get approved.
Steve Barasch responded, no. He said he added the two bedrooms under an approved
building permit, which has been given its final inspection. He clarified he does not want
to add rooms to the existing house.
Ms. Rowley stated that according to the figures submitted by the applicant, the total
square footage proposed is 2075 square feet, which does not provide the required 300
square feet per occupant. She felt that since the guesthouse is a two-story structure, it
does not appear the applicant has provided the required side yard setback. She felt the
number of parking spaces that can fit on the site is not adequate, which will affect the
number of people that can live there. And most important, she felt the proposal to build
this modified apartment building on an R-1 lot is a misuse of the intent of the City's
definition of guesthouse. She mentioned that the definition states that a guesthouse is
an accessory structure to the primary residence; meaning it would be to temporarily
house visiting friends and relatives of the residence of the primary residence. She felt
there are significant problems with this application, and the concept of the project is
defective and should be denied.
Carol Winger, 2041 Hays Street, stated she is confused about the existing five-
bedroom house and would like it explained how they got five bedrooms from the original
three-bedroom house.
Steve Barasch explained that the original building was U shaped with a patio. The two
additional bedrooms are already there, built with permits issued last December.
Ms. Winger explained that she didn't realize the two extra bedrooms had already been
built.
Pam Ricci stated that following the public testimony, she will ask the applicant to
respond to some of the issues that have come up by displaying the plans and show the
bedroom configuration of the existing house.
Ms. Winger added she is concerned because the neighborhood is becoming a bedroom
community to Cal Poly. In her opinion, this is not a guesthouse. She felt the term
"modified apartment building" is a more appropriate description, since it is like an
apartment but doesn't have a kitchen and only has one bathroom.
Dave Watson, 2044 Loomis Street, stated wondered how two bedrooms can be added
to the house without extending the exterior walls. He felt this is another step to
deteriorate the R-1 neighborhood. He noted there have been garage conversions that
don't make sense to him. He felt this is an ever-increasing movement. He felt that the
bottom line is money — to increase the income of the property, by renting to more
students. He noted that garage conversions have gotten approved, which he doesn't
3
- Attachment 4
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
August 16, 2002
Page 6
understand. He said it seems as if the Planners, Planning Commission and City Council
are willing to bend the rules to allow this to continue to deteriorate the residential areas
of our community. He noted he has lived here since 1957, and is very opposed to this
proposal.
Terry Elfrink, 1983 Slack Street, commented that the R-1 zone is low-density zoning.
He felt that cramming eight adults into a very small area deteriorates the quality of the
neighborhood. He mentioned that the neighborhood is made up of small houses that
are getting crunched from all directions. He also pointed out the difference between
guests vs. tenants.
Steve Barasch displayed the plans showing the room designations. He explained that
they have significantly improved the properties in the last year and are drastically
improving the quality of the homes. He felt the community needs to balance the need
for affordable housing with the sensitivities of the neighborhoods and has tried to do
that with this application. He felt they have met and exceeded all of the performance
standards required of the high occupancy permit. He said he could accept staff's
recommended conditions, and felt they have met the spirit and intent of the zoning
regulations. He apologized that the floor plans of the main house were not circulated,
but noted he did submit them.
Mr. Barasch said he felt he has clearly met or exceeded the criteria clearly stated in
section 17.93.040 on the performance standards component of the zoning ordinance.
He also stated they are enhancing the area and supplying much needed amenities to
the neighborhood such as providing a sound barrier to the freeway and that by
providing all of the needed parking on site, they are getting cars off the street, which will
clean up and lessen congestion on the street. He further noted that as landlords, they
have very strict policies on how they maintain this property, and that there has never
been a noise disturbance issued on this property
In response to a question, Mr. Barasch responded that no trees will be removed.
Cydney Holcomb commented that RQN wrote the high occupancy ordinance for the
City. She takes exception on whether providing student housing does anything to solve
the "affordable housing" problem. She said she has heard that Mr. Barasch is renting
one of their houses on Loomis Street for $3100/month, which is not very affordable..
She asked if the dishwasher, along with the refrigerator, would be allowed.
Tyler Corey responded that the proposed sink and refrigerator will not be allowed, but
was not certain about the dishwasher.
Ms. Holcomb asked what the space would be converted into if it could not be used as a
kitchen.
Attachment 4
Administrative Hearing - Minutes
August 16, 2002
Page 7
Pam Ricci noted that there are a number of concerns expressed that require adequate
information prior to the public hearing.
Planner Corey stated that a code requirement was added stating that cooking facilities
within the main house will need to be upgraded to "commercial-type" heat-processing
equipment to accommodate the number of occupants.
Dave Watson asked about the "lawn-like" paving on the parking area. It was explained
to him by Pam Ricci that this is an alternative paving material, and that there will be
landscaping along the street frontage.
Terry Elfrink expressed concerns about the parking situation, enforcement and
penalties. He also asked if the existing garage is within the 20-foot setback and stated
that zoning regulations state covered parking should not be located within this setback.
Planner Corey stated that the garage is within the 20-foot setback. He also stated that
the setback requirement for the guest house is eight feet and that no exception is being
proposed.
Pam Ricci explained the parking is legally non-conforming, and the garage will remain.
There was discussion that clarified that the hearing officer could revoke the use permit
if there were sufficient noise complaints. It was asked that if, due to noise complaints,
this use permit was revoked, could another use permit be requested at a later time.
Pam Ricci explained that she was not certain, but will check what the ordinance states.
She also verified that these use permits must be reviewed every 12 months and that
they stay with the property, not the landowner.
The public hearing was closed.
Pam Ricci referred this item to the Planning Commission for consideration given the
amount of public interest in the request and the questions raised with the scale and
intensity of the project as a proposed high occupancy use in the R-1 zone. She made
the following observations:
1. The property is inherently more physically suitable for additional density, given that it
is more isolated that most R-1 properties because it is adjacent to two streets, and
buffered by Highway 101.
2. This particular site is large enough that it allows for the required parking to be
developed on-site. It is located on Grand Avenue, which is an arterial street which
has an entrance to Cal Poly.
3. She visited the site and found it to be very well maintained and attractive.
3��
- Attachment 4
Administrative Hearing Minutes
August 16, 2002
Page 8
4. She observed that many attendees from the public agreed that there was insufficient
information available for a complete application prior to consideration of the use
permit. She mentioned that normally the decision would be to continue the item to
allow for that information to be provided to staff.
5. She noted that the Planning Commission should carefully examine the definition of a
guesthouse and deliberate over the appropriateness of the proposed 3-bedroom
bungalow in the context of the high-density residential use regulations. She noted that
most of the previous use permits approved for such uses have been in a single
structure with limited site changes to accommodate property development standards
under the ordinance.
Ms. Ricci explained that the minutes and the written statements would be available prior
to this application going before the Planning Commission, and would most likely be
contained in the staff report.
There was an additional comment made by an attendee regarding where the notices
were mailed — they were mailed to the apartments on Grand Avenue, Abbott Street, the
Mt. Carmel Lutheran Church, and the applicants. She felt the notices were not mailed to
the proper addresses. Pam Ricci explained the rationale of the City's notification
requirements.
5-,73
Attachment 5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Direcq MEETING DATE: September 11, 2002
Prepared by: Michael Codron,Associate Planner (781-7175)
FILE NUMBER: A 90-02
PROJECT ADDRESS: 520 Grand Avenue
SUBJECT: Request for a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eight adults to live
in a single-family home.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit for eight adults, based on findings and
subject to conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant has applied for a permit to allow eight adults to reside at 520 Grand Avenue, a lot
in the single-family residential zone (R-1). The project site is presently developed with a five
bedroom home. The application includes a proposal to construct a new, detached building with
three bedrooms.
On August 16, 2002, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing to consider
the proposed use permit. After much deliberation and given the level of public interest (see
Attachment 3, Admin. Hearing Minutes), the Hearing Officer referred the item to the Planning
Commission for consideration.. The item was scheduled for the earliest available Planning
Commission agenda.
Data Summary
Address: 520 Grand Avenue
Applicant: Grand Avenue Properties
Representative: Stephen B. Barasch, AIA, APA
Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential)
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental: Categorically exempt(CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and 15301)
Site Description
The project site is an existing lot in the R-1 zone. The property is located on a corner and is
developed with a five-bedroom home and a detached, two-car garage. The project site is
bordered by Highway 101 to the south, and similar single-family residential development to the
north and east. The site has 150 feet of street frontage on Loomis Drive, with two existing
driveway approaches.
3-Zy
Attachment 5
A 90-02 (520 Grand)
Page 2
Project Description
The appellant is requesting a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eights adults to
live in a single-family home. The project includes a proposal to construct a detached building
with three additional bedrooms.
EVALUATION
Project plans have been revised since the initial application submittal to address problems with
the driveway design, setbacks, and area requirements and to provide additional information
regarding the floor plan of the existing home. The plans that have been submitted to the
Planning Commission are largely consistent with the requirements of the High-Occupancy
Residential Use Permit regulations (SLOMC 17.93, see Attachment 4), except as noted under the
Plan Accuracy section of this evaluation. Performance standards for the proposed high
occupancy use are contained in the following table.
Standard Requirement Provided ..
Minimum Gross 300 s.f. per, less garage area, 300 s.f. per adult
Floor Area per adult. 8 adults requires (Project Plans indicate that the total
2,400 s.f. gross floor area. building area is 2,861 square feet,
less a 461 s.f. garage = 2,400 s.f.
gross floor area.)
Parking One off-street parking space Seven parking spaces are provided
er adult occupant, less one..
Parking in other No parking is allowed in side Parking is provided outside of all
yards prohibited or rear yard setback areas. required yards areas.
Parking surfaces Parking spaces must be The applicant is proposing to use a turf-
constructed of an approved block parking surface for aesthetic
all-weather surface. reasons. The City has approved such
parking spaces in the past and is
recommending conditions of approval
to insure ongoing maintenance.
Tandem Parking Tandem parking may be Tandem parking is not requested.
provided if approved by the
Planning Commission.
Bathrooms One bathroom is required for Three bathrooms are provided for eight
every three occupants. adults.
Building, health, The building must meet all The Community Development
safety and fire current codes and have been Department has permits on file for
codes built with all required recent improvements to the main
permits. residence and the proposed bedrooms
would go through the building permit
plan check process to insure
compliance.
3�s�
Attachment 5
A 90-02 (520 Grand)
Page 3
Detached Bedrooms/Guest House
The proposed detached bedrooms have been evaluated by staff for consistency with the City's
Property Development Standards, contained in various sections of the Zoning Regulations.
These detached bedrooms are permitted in the R-1 zoning district, as an extension of the primary
residence, but they may not contain a refrigerator, cooking appliances, or a kitchen sink
(SLOMC 17.04.221). Such detached bedrooms are often referred to as guest houses, and are
intended to be used in conjunction with a primary residence that contains a kitchen. In this case,
the guest house definition may be misleading because the rooms are not intended to be occupied
by guests. However, the restrictions that are contained in the guest house definition are useful
because they prevent the detached building from being converted into a completely separate
dwelling with cooking facilities. A review of the City's Land Use Inventory indicates that
detached accessory structures and bedrooms are common in the City, however, this building
would be the first that staff is aware of that includes multiple bedrooms. Staff is recommending
a condition of approval that would require a covenant agreement between the applicant and the
City that would spell out the limitations of the proposed accessory structure. A standard
covenant agreement is attached for the Planning Commission's review(Attachment 6).
Planning staff believes that the proposed bedrooms should be considered an extension of the
existing residence. In this case the proposed bedrooms are detached, but the project could
conceivably be designed as a physical extension of the primary residence, and the City's
ordinance requirements would be unchanged. Staff believes that the most important definition to
consider in this matter is the definition of High Occupancy Residential Use.
A High Occupancy Residential Use is any dwelling, other than a residential care
facility..., in the R-1 and R-2 zones when the occupancy of the dwelling consists
of six or more adults (SLOMC 17.93.020.A).
Other definitions that staff has considered for the proposed building include Dormitory and
Boardinghouse. These definitions should be considered because the layout of the building
includes three separate bedrooms. Both dormitories and boardinghouses are prohibited in the R-
1 zoning district.
Dormitory: A building used as group quarters for a student body or religious order
as an accessory use for a college, university, boarding school, convent, monastery,
or other similar institutional use. (SLOMC 17.04.125)
Staff does not believe the proposed building and use would constitute a dormitory because it is
not an accessory use of a college or university.
Boardinghouse or Rooming House: A dwelling unit or part thereof, in which, for
compensation, lodging is provided to more than three persons independently of
each other, excluding fraternities and sororities. Meals and personal services may
be offered to the residents as well.
3-2�
Attachment 5
A 90-02 (520 Grand)
Page 4
The applicant intends to rent the house to a group of students as a whole, as opposed to offering
individual leases to individual students. Monitoring of the rental arrangement would occur
through a standard condition of approval that requires annual review of the use. As part of these
reviews, staff routinely requires the applicant to submit their lease agreement with the current
occupants of the residence.
Parkin
The proposed detached bedrooms are elevated, allowing additional parking to be provided at the
ground level. A total of seven parking spaces are provided to serve the residence. Two spaces
are located in the garage, three spaces would be located under the new building, and two more
parking spaces would be uncovered in the yard area. The proposed parking surface is turf-block,
which provides for a green parking surface, if well maintained. Maintenance of the driveway in
good condition is a recommended condition of approval of the project. In addition, staff is
recommending a condition to prohibit parking in the driveway area to insure the longevity and
aesthetic appearance of the driveway surface.
General Plan Consistency
In general, the City's Zoning Ordinance is considered to be consistent with the General Plan, and
acts as the implementation mechanism for many of the General Plan's policies and programs.
When an ordinance, such as the High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations, contain
performance standards, compliance with the ordinance is typically easy to determine. If the
proposed project meets the requirements of the ordinance, it should be determined to be
consistent with the General Plan and approved. In this case, the method by which the applicant
has achieved compliance with the floor area standard (300 square feet per adult occupant)
through the use of a detached building may be perceived to stretch the intent of the ordinance,
and additional General Plan analysis is warranted.
The Land Use Element (LUE) provides general direction for development in low density
residential areas as follows:
Development should be primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a
sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households
occupying them. Such dwellings are generally detached, one- or two-story buildings,
with private outdoor space separating them from neighboring dwellings. Other uses
which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as parks, schools, and
churches, may be permitted. Low-density development is appropriate within and next to
neighborhoods committed to this type of development(LUE 2.4.5).
The LUE also includes objectives for residential projects (LUE 2.2.12).
Residential projects should provide:
A) Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project;
B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and
oriented to receive light and sunshine;
3 a�
Attachment 5
A 90-02 (520 Grand)
Page 5
C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight,and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces
comfortable with minimum mechanical support;
D) Pleasant views from and toward the project;
E) Security and safety;
F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets;
G) Adequate parking and storage space;
H) Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls,
isolating a project, are not desirable.Noise mitigation walls may be used only when
there is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used,they should help create an
attractive pedestrian,residential setting through features such as setbacks, changes in
alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through them at regular
intervals, and planting.)
I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches,front
yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways.
J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes,as recommended by the City Fire
Department.
Land Use Element Policy 2.7.4 also states that housing likely to attract faculty or students should
be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to reduce commute travel.
Although concerns have been raised by neighborhood groups and others regarding the proposed
detached bedrooms, staff believes that the project substantially complies with General Plan
policy on such issues as privacy for occupants and neighbors, pleasant views toward the project,
adequate parking, and private outdoor space. The project site is somewhat isolated from the rest
of the neighborhood, and it is bordered by streets and the highway on three sides.
Staff does not believe that the same proposal would be feasible in a mid-block situation that is
more central to an existing neighborhood. In this case, the large frontage on Loomis Street
makes the proposed parking situation feasible, and the fact that the site is on the fringe of the
adjacent neighborhood makes noise and parking impacts less likely to be major issues. Staff is
confident that the conditions of approval that would be adopted if the permit is approved are
more than adequate to quickly resolve problems that arise from the proposed use (Attachment 7).
These conditions include the potential for review hearings if conditions are not met, or if
reasonable complaints are received from citizens or the Police Department. A one year annual
review is also required, regardless of the behavior of the occupants.
Plan Accuracy
Certain aspects of the plan are not accurate or do not meet the City's basic property development
standard requirements. Building height is shown as 25'-6". The maximum allowable height is
25 feet. The rear setback is shown as 8', but with the current height 8.5' is required. The 8' rear
setback may be adequate depending on how the building height issue is addressed. When the
plan was originally drawn, the frontage improvements were shown in the wrong location and
now certain aspects of the plan, including the front and rear setbacks, are not scalable. The
Attachment 5
A 90-02 (520 Grand)
Page 6
project summary table also contains minor inaccuracies in the areas calculated, which do not
impact the ability of the project to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Staff considers these
plan inaccuracies minor, and is recommending conditions of approval to address each issue (See
Attachment 7, Conditions 2, 3, and 10). The applicant was made aware of these issues but chose
not to revise the plans, which are hand drawn. Staff will have an opportunity to closely review
plans submitted for a building permit application for the project. At that time the plans will have
to be redrawn so that they are accurate and to scale, or the building permit will not be issued.
CONCURRENCES
The City's Public Works, Utilities, Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the project plans
and indicated that the project could be served with existing resources. Comments have been
incorporated into the recommendation as conditions of approval and code requirements as
appropriate.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Planning Commission can continue the project if more information is needed to take
and action. The Commission should provide direction to staff on additional information
necessary to make a recommendation.
2. The Planning Commission can deny the use permit if the decision is based on findings
stating that the project would not comply with the requirements of the High-Occupancy
Residential Use Regulations or that approval of the project would be inconsistent with
provisions contained in the General Plan.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Project Plans
Attachment 3: August 16, 2002, Administrative Hearing action letter and minutes
Attachment 4: High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations, SLOMC 17.93
Attachment 5: Letters from public and neighborhood groups
Attachment 6: Standard Covenant Agreement for New Accessory Structures
Attachment 7: Draft Resolution with the staff recommendation to approve the project
3
PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. 5346-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A HIGH-OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL
USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 520 GRAND STREET;
APPLICATION NO. A 90-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 11, 2002, for the purpose of considering an application for a High Occupancy
Residential Use Permit, Application No. A 90-02, a request to allow occupancy of a single-
family residence by eight adults; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the records of the August 16, 2002
Administrative Hearing and the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Denial. The request to allow occupancy of a single-family residence by eight
adults is hereby denied, based on the following findings:
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, as stated in the Zoning
Regulations (SLOMC Section 17.24.010), because of the proposed occupancy level.
2. The project design does not provide convenient or reasonable access from the detached
bedrooms to the kitchen area of the main residence, which increases the likelihood that the
study area will be converted into a kitchen.
3. The project architecture is not compatible with development in the neighborhood because
there are no other two-story buildings with detached bedrooms in the vicinity.
On motion by Commr. Boswell, seconded by Commr. Caruso, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Loh, Aiken
NOES: Commrs. Osborne, Peterson
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cooper
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11`h day of September, 2002.
P ning Vommissio0y Ronald Whisenand, Secretary
3-�
- . Attachment 6 .
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 11, 2002
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE.OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 11, 2002, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Stephen Peterson, Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Michael
Boswell, James Caruso, Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh.
Absent: None.
Staff: Associate Planners Lynn Azevedo and Michael Codron, Deputy
Community Development Director Michael Draze, Deputy Community
Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Community Development
Director John Mandeville, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and
Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. 520 Grand Avenue. A 90-02; Request for a high occupancy residential use permit
to allow eight occupants; R-1 zone; Grand Avenue Properties, applicant.
Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report, recommending approval
of a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eight adults to live in a single-
family home, based on findings and subject to conditions, which he outlined.
Steve Barasch, applicant, gave a brief presentation and requested this application be
approved because it complies with the current performance standards for the City of
San Luis Obispo.
Commr. Aiken asked the applicant if he was aware of the correspondence received by
the City opposing the project.
Mr. Barasch replied that since none of the letters were addressed to him, he was not
aware of them.
Commr. Aiken asked if the garage could be orientated so the doors are on the west and
the access would be through the common driveway.
Planner Codron noted that under the current Zoning Ordinance, the garage could be
converted into a side-loaded garage.
3-3/
Draft Planning Commission k__ites
Attachment 6
Excerpt of Item 2
September 11, 2002
Page 2
Commr. Aiken felt that a side-loaded garage would be a better design.
Commr. Boswell asked what the applicant means by "unique leasing structure".
Mr. Barasch explained the leases are joint and severable, which means they do not rent
by the room, and each tenant is responsible for their space.
Commr. Boswell asked if there are two lots of record.
Mr. Barasch replied no, they have been combined.
Commr. Caruso asked if the kitchen facilities would be shared.
Mr. Barasch replied yes; only one kitchen is allowed.
Chairwoman Loh said the size of the bedrooms are very small.
Mr. Barasch replied the legal size for a bedroom is 75 square feet and the proposed
bedrooms are over 100 square feet.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, mentioned that she opposes this
project, and felt it is an ill-planned project in the middle of an R-1 zone.
Sydney Holcomb, Residence for Quality Neighborhoods Chairperson, noted that RQN is
against the project because of the high occupancy nature, the guesthouse, and the
intent of the ordinance regarding the guesthouse. RQN feels the intent of the ordinance
is that a guesthouse should only be used by family members, guests, and persons
providing health care.
Tom Kay, Alta Vista Neighborhood Group spokesperson, opposed the request and
expressed concern about modifying the codes, and commented on the trend that this
would put forth.
Camille Small, 711 Skyline Drive, commented on the Neighborhood Wellness Action
Plan and noted this project shows why there should be one.
Carol Winger, 2041 Hayes Street, SLO, expressed concern about a project like this in a
R-1 neighborhood.
Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, felt this is not the way to bring more housing to
San Luis Obispo and suggested they deny the request. Mr. Carter pointed out that the
residents of the detached building would have to walk out to the sidewalk to get into the
main house to use the kitchen..
- Attachment 6
Draft Planning Commission b rtes
Excerpt of Item 2
September 11, 2002
Page 3
Sandra Roley, Garden Street, commented that the Commission is being asked to
consider a change to this property that would result in a density increase of over 250%,
and requested the use permit be denied.
Brett Cross, 17 Mariner's Cove, SLO, referred to General Plan Policy 2.2.10, which
addresses compatible development, and noted that nothing about this project is
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Janet Kourakis, (no address) expressed concerns with the request, and concurred with
the concerns of the other public speakers.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Mr. Barasch noted they have never referred to the additional unit as a guesthouse,
boarding room, or dormitory. He described it as three detached bedrooms above a
three-car carport.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked if the lot were split, would they be allowed to build a three-
bedroom house.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied that in the R-1 zone, there are no restrictions on the
number of bedrooms based on the lot size.
Vice-Chair Osborne questioned what the impact would be if the proposed three
bedroom addition were attached rather-than detached. He also questioned the intent of
the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit standards, and asked if it applies to
existing residences but not to additions.
Deputy Director Whisenand explained as long as a project complies with the
development standards and goes through the permit process, it does not matter if an
addition is involved.
Commr. Boswell moved to deny the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit for the
subiect property, based on modified findings. Seconded by Commr. Caruso.
Planner Codron offered three findings for denial. After some discussion, staff modified
the findings.
Commr. Peterson noted that he could not support the motion because he felt the
request is appropriate at this location.
Vice-Chair Osborne noted that he would not support the motion, and felt that it is unfair
to have an applicant follow all the rules and then be turned down at this level.
3-33
Draft Planning Commission .- .rtes Attachment 6
Excerpt of Item 2
September 11, 2002
Page 4
Commr. Aiken mentioned there are zoning changes that are coming in the future that
would support having a higher occupancy and density at this site. If the applicant were
patient, he would not have to go through this process again.
Chairwoman Loh expressed a concern about the quality of the neighborhood and this
project having an eight-bedroom residence in the R-1 zone. She felt the request is
inappropriate in an R-1 zone.
Commr. Boswell agreed with Commissioner Peterson that the site could handle more
intense development because of the particular location, but his concern is that the site is
zoned R-1. He did not like the manipulation involved to get multi-family housing in an
R-1 zone.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Aiken, and Chairwoman Loh.
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Osborne.
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 4-2.
It was noted that this action could be appealed to the City Council by anyone, within 10
days.
3-.20
- `Attachment 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
9 2002
Miki Gillman .
1874 McCollum Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
San Luis Obispo CA 93405-2042
To: City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department and City Council Mcmbers:
RE: 520 Grand Avenue
I stringently object to permitting any high occupancy residence at this address.
Population density and traffic are the main issues.
We already have the capacity to have up to 5 unrelated adults living in each home. Add 5
cars and 5 different times of day of coming and going and you have a significant noise
impact on neighbors who are needing to sleep, study, converse in normal voices,Wor
think.
I am also concerned that there is insufficient space at 520 Grand and environs for the
current proposal.
Please do not under anv circumstances increase the population density in the Monterey
Heights Neighborhood.
I thank you all for your attention to this matter.
Sincer/fery�,
Miki Gillman
3 3S�
T 'd
1296-Lbs JopTayozeg uaTTH RJJeJ d90 : T0 20 6T Inf
c� Atta�t�mpnt �
cour cit mEmoRa , ium �r
city of san Luis owspor community development aepatztment
DATE: July 17, 2002
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct/ 'J_.
BY: Diane Stuart, Supervising Administrative Assistarc(/�
SUBJECT: Response to e-mail from Larry Batcheldor
A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Request for High Occupancy Residential Use Permit
Mr. Batcheldor sent an e-mail to Councilman Schwartz, alleging an error in the City's
notification process for this particular project.
In checking our posting log, as well as verifying the information with our Intern, the following
was established:
On Thursday, July 11, 2002, Jaime Britz, Planning Intern, visited the site for the purpose of
posting the property for a public hearing. Because this property in on a corner lot, she prepared
two posters, one for each street frontage.
When Jaime arrived at the site, there was a gentleman in the yard. She assumed this to be
the property owner, and noted that the house appeared to be vacant. She posted the two posters
at the site between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. The gentleman was still at the house when she left. Jaime
is very clear that she posted the property on Thursday because she was not scheduled to work on
Friday. Once the signs are posted, an official log is filled out noting the date of posting and the
address of the project.
Because this is an Administrative Hearing item, the legal ad and posting requirement is 5-
days (not the 10-day requirement as is typical for Planning Commission items). This item was
also advertised in the newspaper on Saturday, July 13`h. Therefore, both the legal advertising
and posting were within the prescribed policy.
t ��na}1y Y cc�chPd YY\Y`.
cc: Ronald Whisenand ?assca On
Michael Codron
�n�oYY-)'\Ck ions
a� well cxS 4\t c,lo}Deal
Process, Nc understood
t�Ntm waS no error on our
?ar �, rrne �Or
Jul 16 U2 06: 18p Larry Hllen batoheloor a4i-atici p. 1
Attachment 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
July 16, 2002
XL 7 2002
Community Development Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A��... 1..1..+ /+.+.�....:ll..
llaa.f. JV.. t II.CI.IVL,:Y,IIq=
Sir,
In regard to permit A 90-02, for 520 Grand Avenue, to increase
occupancy from five to eight persons, no, no, no, a thousand times
noH Please do not issue this permit.
This permit does not increase the quality of life in my
neighborhood. The permit also is in direct opposition to the top
three stated goals of all neighborhood associations, which are noise
a^d part i55;:Q5, traffic Cdiiiiing airy parking 155425, aiid ® i density
issues.
Also, I walk to work and back every work day, Monday to Friday, to _
my office located on Peach Street. !n doing so, ! walk by 520 Grand
Avenue everyday on both the Loomis Street and Grand Avenue
frontage streets. The first time any permit signs could have been
posted was on Friday, July 12th, after 5.30 P-M., and the first time I
saw the signs was on Monday, July 15th , at 7:30 A.M. l am willing
and will so testify under oath if needed that this was so. This was
just four days before the hearing on this issue was scheduled. I do
believe any law, rule, or ordinance, allows such short notice before
a hearing. If this is so, I request the hearing be rescheduled to
reflect proper notification as required by law.
Please do not issue the permit for 520 Grand Avenue.
Thalao
Larrtc e*to r
1874 McCollum Street - San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 phone: 543-9621
uerr�lYlAerY- .. C5 daYOS4s r\(b) 3-37
- Attachment 7
August 15, 2002 7LOFSANS OBISPO
City of San Luis Obispo ATTN: Administrative Hearing Officer '`>>
900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Re: Use Permit Application A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Dear Sir:
First, the applicant has not provided the configuration of the existing house as required by city
code. Instead, applicant has provided only an exterior sketch with all walls and rooms omitted.
This lack of detail is significant because it omits required information from the application and
because it may make the current living arrangements appear more spacious.
Second, applicant's plans show an existing 5 bedroom house to which he plans to add 1
additional bedroom and a guest house. Using figures the applicant has provided, after the
additional bedroom is added the house will be 1715 square feet. This means the house as it is
currently configured is 1395 square feet. Again using figures the applicant has provided, the
guest house will be 680 square feet. This combination, a current square footage of 1395 plus
guest house square footage of 680, totals 2075 square feet and does not provide the required 300
square feet per occupant.
Third, since the guest house is a two-story building, it does not appear applicant has provided
the requisite side yard set-back. Doing so will impact the number of parking spaces which can be
fit in the plan and, consequently, the number of people who can live there.
Fourth, and most important, applicant's proposal to build this modified apartment building on
an R-1 lot is a misuse of the intent of the City's definition of"guest house." The definition states
that a"guest house" is an accessory structure to the primary residence. Thus its use, per City
definition, would be to temporarily house visiting friends and relatives of the residents of the
primary residence.
There are significant problems with this application; however, in my opinion, having the
applicant add missing data and return with a complete packet would be a waste of applicant and
staff time. The concept of this project is defective and, on that basis, should be denied.
Sincerely, ^�`
ow
Sandra Rowley
3-3t
Attachment 7
.�e
RQN
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 �—
CITY
iLM6 6 0U'
DEVELOPMENT
To: Administrative Hearing Officer, City of San Luis Obispo
Hearing Date: August 16, 2002
Re: A 90-02
Item #5 - Request for High Occupancy Residential Use Permit - 520 Grand Avenue
RQN has reviewed the application for a high occupancy use permit to allow eight adult
tenants to reside on the premises at 520 Grand Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, low
density residential. Since the existing single-story residence will not accommodate eight
occupants the applicant proposes to build a new two-story, detached rental unit consisting
of three. bedrooms, three carports and a kitchen. He is relying on San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code, Chapter 17.93, High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations, and the definition for
Guest House contained in MC §17.04.221. We have reviewed the application with respect to
these code sections and submit the following comments:
1. The High Occupancy Application
The application for the High Occupancy Use Permit is incomplete, in that information
"required" under §17.93.050 A. 2(d) is missing. This section requires that the applicant
submit and certify as a part of the application for an administrative use permit, a site plan
which shows:
"the Noor plan for the dwelling with the rooms clearly labeled."
There is a configured floor plan shown for the new structure, however, no configured floor
plan has been provided for the existing residence. The only information we have is the
applicant's statement that it is an existing five (5) bedroom house. He also shows a "new
bedroom addition" at the rear of the existing building." This information is somewhat
conflicting and gives the appearance that there may even be another bedroom planned.
As you might imagine, over the years, RQN has reviewed many High Occupancy permit
requests. We have never seen one that did not provide a floor plan drawn to scale showing
all bedrooms, bathrooms and common areas, such as living rooms, kitchens, and storage
accommodations. This application is for eight occupants and the site plan must show that
adequate support facilities exist.
Attachment 7
August 16, 2002 Page 2
Re: A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
We submit that without the required information provided on the site plan, the Hearing
Officer will not be able to make a determination that the support facilities do in fact exist, in
order to approve the application for an increase in occupancy. [see: Purpose of High
Occupancy Ordinance §17.93.010].
2. The Guest House
A guest house is defined by the code as:
"A separate accessory structure, that is designed, occupied, or intended for
occupancy as sleeping and bathing quarters only, that does not contain a
refrigerator, cooking appliances, or a kitchen sink, and is intended to be used
in conjunction with a primary residence that contains a kitchen."[M§17.04.22 1].
As stated in that definition, guest houses are accessory structures, that are subordinate to
the principal structure. The codes, however, contain no other regulations or guidelines which
specifically govern either accessory structures or guest houses. When no appropriate
regulations exist for a provision we must look to the intent of the provision for direction.
We believe the name and the language of the code section clearly implies that the intent of
the guest house provision is to provide structures, for use by the occupants of the principal
residence and their GUESTS. It certainly does not conjure up visions of the type of
development that the applicant has proposed here. Guests are short term visitors, tenants
are not. A true guest house should be limited in size and situated in interior side and rear
yards, where it will not be visible from the street.
Staff has suggested that this proposal would not be feasible in a mid-block situation, where
it could be hidden in the back, but rationalize that it is somehow acceptable within the street
side yard of a comer lot where it will be totally visible from the street.
It is our opinion that this code section was never intended to support the type of
development the applicant is proposing. It certainly doesn't comply with the following
dictates contained in H 7.2.1 of the Housing Element:
"new residential development must be of a character, size, density and quality that
preserves the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and
Future residents."[Emphasis Added].
If you stray from the original intent of the provision, you will create a precedent for
unregulated development with no way to ensure land use compatibility and no way to
maintain the scale, density and character in existing neighborhoods.
3�yo
Attachment 7
August 16, 2002 Page 3
Re: A 90-02 (520 Grand Avenue)
Therefore, we request that you:
• Deny the applicant's request for a high occupancy permit based on the fact that the
application is insufficient, and further that the proposed development is not
appropriate in the R-1 zone; and,
• Pursue direction from the City Council to establish guidelines and regulations for
accessory structures, including guesthouses in the residential zones.
Sincerely,
Cydney Holcomb
Chairperson, RQN
3-A-1/
Attachmen
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Date: September 8, 2002 SEP 9 20n?
To: Planning Commission Chairperson Alice Loh, and
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Honorable Members of The San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission
From: Carla Saunders,
Former Member, General Plan, Land Use Committee,
City of San Luis Obispo
Subject: Land Use Element Consistency of a detached, multiple bedroom,
non-owner occupied, rental "Guesthouse"in an existing R1 neighborhood.
(September 11, Planning Commission Meeting, Item#2)
Dear Chairperson Loh, and Honorable Members of The Planning Commission,
Item#2 is a proposal for an additional housing unit on an already
developed lot in an existing,low-density residential neighborhood. Specifically,it is
not a proposal for an attached"granny unit",but for a detached,non-owner
occupied,rental "guesthouse"with three bedrooms.The staff report states that it is
precedent setting,as it"would be the first that staff is aware of that includes
multiple bedrooms".
The Land Use Element specifically addresses the issue of the compatibility of
new development within an existing neighborhood:
Policy section 2.2.10 of The Land Use Element states in its entirety;
"2.2.10 Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood
should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood All multifamily development
and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density
development.
A. Architectural Character. New buildings should respect existing buildings
which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character,in
terms of size, spacing, and variety.
B. Privacy and Solar Access. New buildings will respect the privacy and solar
access of neighborinp,buildings and outdoor areas,particularly where
multistory buildings or additionsmayoverlook backyards of adjacent
dwellings. (See also the Energy Conservation Element.)"
3-yL
Attachment 7
The Program to implement neighborhood compatibility is in section "2.14
Neighborhood Compatibility". It states in its entirety,
" 2.14 Neighborhood Commatibility
The City will consider new regulations, for low-Density and Medium-Density
Residential areas,to require special review for(1)incompatibly large houses, (2)
replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and(3)accessory buildings with
plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings"
The other program in this chapter,which implements the preservation of existing
neighborhoods,is "Section 2.15 Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans." It states in its
entirety;
"2.15 Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans
To help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods, the City will;
A Identify neighborhoods, and work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans
that empower them to One their neighborhoods.
B. Help devise strategies to help stabilize the rental/owner ratio,to maintain
neighborhood character, safety, and stability.
C. Help iden&y neighborhood problems, and undertake a wide range of focused
development review, capital-improvement, and code—enforcement efforts.
D. Encourage the formation ofvohmtary neighborhood groups, so residents can
become involved early in the development reviewrop cess.
E. Involve residents early in reviewing p=osed public and private projects that could
have neighborhood impacts, by notifying residents and property owners and
holdings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods.
F. Provide appropriate staff support,possibly including a singleperson for
neighborhood issues, and train all staff to be sensitive to issues of neighborhood
protection and enhancement."
3-5'3
Attachment 7
SUMMARY
1. The staff report fails to refer to the specific sections of the land Use
element which deal with the central issue.....the compatibility of new
development in existing neighborhoods.
2. If the planning commission can't find that this project is consistent
with these"neighborhood compatibility"sections of the Land Use
Element,including the sections below,isn't it required to deny the
project?
A. "Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale
and in character with that neighborhood".(Section 2.2.10)
B. Section 2.15. E of the Programs section states that the.City wi_,ll
"hold meetings at convenient times and places within the
neighborhoods", early in reviewing proposed private projects that
could have neighborhood impacts. (Although the staff report
states that this project is precedent setting,it is my understanding
that the city did not hold a meeting within the neighborhood
about it.)
3. The City's Land Use Element requires specific "neighborborhood
protection programs". The city has failed to implement them.
The Planning Commission should recommend that the City
immediately implement the required "neighborhood
protection programs" of the Land Use Element, especially the
programs which would"Help devise strategies to help stabilize the
rental/owner ratio,to maintain neighborhood character,safety,and
stability" and "Identify neighborhoods,and work with residents to
prepare neighborhood plans that empower them to shape their
neighborhoods."Clearly,guidelines for guesthouses in RI
neighborhoods would be part of what would be covered.
4. It seems logical that the Planning Commission would recommend to
the City Council that guesthouse guidelines should be developed,
before permitting this precedent setting guesthouse in an existing
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
NJ,Q�-
Carla Saunders
Sep 10 02 04: 22p C' '"IEY HOLCOMB r 5-594-0365 p. 1
Attachment 7
Q
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604•San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
CITY
i
September 10, 2002
COMMUNITY DEVELOPiJIENT
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Faxed to: 781-7109
Re: Meeting Date: 9/11/02, Item #2
A 90-02 Request for a High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit to allow eight adults to live In a
single-family home at 520 Grand Avenue.
Dear Chairwoman Loh and Planning Commission Members,
This is an application by a local landlord to increase tenant occupancy on an R-1 lot, situated on the
comer of Grand Avenue and Loomis Street in the Monterey Heights Neighborhood Parking District.
There is an existing single-family structure on the property which allegedly has a total of 5
bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to build a new detached "guesthouse" to house the 3
additional tenants. At issue is: whether it is appropriate to increase the rental occupancy under the
high occupancy ordinance using the guesthouse provision contained in the Municipal Code.
1. The.High Occupancy Application
The "purpose" of the High Occupancy Ordinance [§17.93.010] is to ensure compatibility with
existing or desired conditions in the neighborhood by requiring dwellings to have adequate support
facilities in place to accommodate an increase in occupancy. Larger houses can generally support
more occupancy, but if the support facilities do not exist the permit must be denied. We believe
there is a presumption that the ordinance applies to the "existing" dwelling and should not be used
as a tool to build additional rental units on the property. Adding more rooms to increase rental
occupancy is anathema to the residents of low density R-1 neighborhoods.
We believe the application for the permit is still inadequate despite the fact that the applicant has
finally produced the required floor plan for the existing dwelling. To the best of our knowledge no
verification has been made of the actual square footage of the dwelling, before or after the addition
of two new bedrooms. Information obtained from the Building Department, although confusing with
respect to issuance of the building permits, sheds no light on the size of the dwelling. (See:
Attachment). Information submitted by the applicant, on file at the Assessor's Office, states that
when he purchased the house it was 1,418 sq.ft. The applicant stated at the Administrative Hearing
that the new bedrooms added another 260 sq.ft. The proposed guesthouse is 680 sq.ft. making the
total 2,358 sq,ft. §17.93.040(1) of the High Occupancy Ordinance requires 300 sq.ft. of gross floor
space per adult occupant, therefore, 8 adults would need 2,400 sq.ft.
3-�s
Sep 10 02 04: 22p C' `IEY HOLCOMB r 7-594-0365 p. 2
Attachment 7
September 10, 2002
Re: 520 Grand Avenue Page 2
2. The Guesthouse
Municipal Code §17.04.221 defines a guesthouse as:
"A separate accessory structure, that is designed, occupied, or intended for occupancy as sleeping
and bathing quarters only, that does not contain a refrigerator, cooking appliances, or a kitchen sink,
and is intended to be used in conjunction with a primary residence that contains a kitchen."
Staff discusses the "definition' of guesthouse in this instance as misleading because the occupants
will be tenants not guests. (See: Agenda Report, page 3, Paragraph 1). . They expound further,
saying the restrictions contained in the guesthouse provision "prevent the detached building from
being converted into a completely separate dwelling with cooking facilities" and that we should think.
of this structure merely as an extension of the primary residence implying that it is similar to being
attached. The fact of the matter is that this unit is an unattached accessory dwelling that does not
have a kitchen and therefore should not be rented. The occupants of guesthouses are not supposed
to be tenants. Guesthouses are designed and most commonly used for occasional occupancy by
family members, and guests. This is clearly an attempt to circumvent the intent of the guesthouse
provision and underscores the need to clarify the terminology and create specific guidelines for
accessory structures including guesthouses.
3. Precedent
It is our opinion that the intent of the guesthouse ordinance is that a guesthouse should only be
used by family members, guests, and persons providing health care or property maintenance for the
owner. The intent presumes that the owner of the property would occupy the principal residence.
Allowing these types of units to be developed as rental properties in the R-1 zone would create a
dangerous precedent and cause speculation in residential properties that can make housing less
affordable. As we stated in our letter of 8-16-02 this precedent would lead to rampant, unregulated
development and encourage more absentee ownership with no way to ensure land use compatibility
and no way to maintain the scale, density and character of existing neighborhood.
Therefore, we request that your commission:
• Find that the project Is inconsistent with the following provisions of the General Plan:
LUE 2.2.10; WE 2.14; WE 2.158; WE 2.15E; H7.1.1; H7.2.1; and, H7.2.6
• Deny the application for a high occupancy permit based on a finding that using the guest
house provision to provide housing for 3 additional tenants is not appropriate.
• Recommend to the City Council that specific guidelines be established for guesthouses
pertaining to size, height, number of bedrooms, owner occupation of principal dwelling, and
any others that the Commission deem necessary to preserve residential neighborhood
character.
Respectfully submitted,
Cydney Holcomb
Chairperson, RQN
Attachment:
Sep 10 02 04: 22p C`" 'EY HOLCOMB P" _1 594-0365 p. 3
' Attachment 7
>>> "Cydney Holcomb" <cholcomb@charter.net> 09/09/02 09:35AM >>>
Hi, Don,
Could you please tell me:
1. When Mr. Barasch applied for and was issued a building permit for
the 2 new bedrooms he apparently added to the existing residence at 520
Grand Avenue.
2. When the addition was finaled. (We reviewed the City's Land Use
Inventory prior to both the July 19, 2002 hearing, which was continued,
and the August 16, 2002 hearing and saw no entries pertaining to bedroom
additions).
3. The square footage of each of the new bedrooms. If and when a field
verification was made by the City.
4. The square footage of the existing residence prior to the bedroom
additions. If and when a field verification was made by the City.
Thanks so much...
Cydney
From: "Don Wright" <DWRIGHT@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
To: <cholcomb@charter.net>
Subject: Re: 520 Grand Ave.
Date: Monday, September 09, 2002 11:48 AM
1. 10/09/01 a revision was approved to convert the covered patio into 2
bedrooms (doesn't show up in history because it was a revision to the
approved plans) Tom changed the history recently to show the revision
as a permit ( says "2 habitable rooms") to make it more clear, but the
dates are screwed up.
2. I believe 11/01/01. That's the patio cover, but it included the
revision for the 2 bedrooms.
3. Looks like 135 sq. ft. each. Sometime between 10/09/01 and
11/01/01.
4. Don't know - original permit was for a patio cover (that became 2
bedrooms) that doesn't appear to add to lot coverage, since it was over
an existing deck. So the question probably didn't need to be asked.
We have the permit file and plans here, if you would like to look at
them.
Don
3-V7
Sep 10 02 04: 23p C�- NEY HOLCOMB P -594-0365 p. 4
Attachment 7
>>> "Cydney Holcomb" <cholcomb@charter.net> 09/09/02 03:16PM >>>
The reason I was asking about the square footage of the existing
residence Is because Barasch told the Assessor's Office when he bought
the house It was 1418 sq.ft. He stated on the record at the hearing,
that the new rooms were 13' x 10' each. If you do the math...1418 + 260
+ 680 = 2358 sq. ft. He doesn't have enough for the High Occupancy
Permitil ( he needs 8 x 300 = 2400 sq.ft.). Wouldn't it be appropriate
for someone to verify his figures BEFORE he gets the permit?
Cheers....
Cydney
From: "Don Wright" <DWRIGHT@ci.san-Luis-obispo.ca.us>
To: <cholcomb@charter.net>
Subject: Re: 520 Grand Ave.
Date: Monday, September 09, 2002 4:21 PM
Well, Planning is processing the High Occ. permit and yes, It would be
appropriate for them to verify whatever requirements there are for that.
All I'm saying is that, at the time of the issuance of permits for the
addition, there didn't appear to be any reason to verify square footage
of the existing residence, so, to my knowledge, we don't have that
information on record.
ATTACHMENT #8
Cly 0f SEP 13 2002
GaMby •.J�
san lues OB1sp0 SLID CITY CLERK
IF- APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION
i9R/rND AVgWVC— PAOPa-7 -MCC — 2/6,07, OL- CPZAfIM 51�0 C4+ 9340/
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
lam' 26 00 ROS • S'¢4 -3 zoo
Phone Fax
S77PH-P-J Ro�+D 4 9 .
Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Pig-oP�-ry' ��r��vE eos•s9�2�av/8os• .r44--3zco
Title Phone Fax
SECTION Z. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
37AA/ 1,VIS V6/S?0 I04-0t-�NIAI& 4QPM1W1rs14!7N
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: S�P'T ��/ 200 Z
3. The application or project was entitled: 520 (qtx�v"/c� A-yEIVAO/ A 147--cz
E-fj6ff OCGUP�uGy /e�3/06MlAL (Are p0RM17 /-P^/44.770N
4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member.
Al 16#R07' 6D.-R01q1 AytfCC", e Azo-Wc,-- on ,5-0pr /3/ 2602
(Staff Members Name and Department) (Date)
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your
appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal: You may attach additional pages, if
necessary. This form continues on the other side.
Page 1 of 3
3-f�
Reason for Appeal continued 7' ' the
^Atter �
" da� 740 a[a n 7U 520 ff A Ou
AP
s
a .A• 6V, C�f� --Wu!'t' Aad.�.¢ fow, isi4.e
G WU" 71W
U/
_;n. Gdis Ob cd
PGSao wxo
o5 /o/ /kj"
;fir • 1`
Grirs
EEC,7XON 4 APPELLANT'S RE&RONS/B I
;The San Luis Obispo City Couricil,values public parGcpation m local.government and
IT
encourages atl_formsof cftzen involvement The City-'unlike rn6st in Ca6forrua, does ha-
charge;aee3or filing an appeah klowever„ placing an appear before the City Ceunc�l requires v
considerable work antl"cost, itclu�dmg�agenda Teport preparation and.public not�ficalJon
Therefor
e,your nghto exercise an appeal comesw�th certain respons�bi6ties: `If,you,fle`an
appeal;pl-ease,undefstand that i musf,be heard wnthm 45`da f om,filin thi5.form You will be
notified m venting ofthe exact',d to your appeal will a schedu ed to be heard before fii
Counci4 You°or your representative UuvilL6e expected to aitendahe;pubhc hearing;anii`to be.
preParedtto make your;oasik Yourtestimony'is iirrilted to 1Wrmnutes
A cohtinuance rna�i be granted untler certain and unusua1<circumstances 'if you feel you
need to`request a continuance^;you must subrru your bequest n writing tothe City.Clerk,: Piease be
advised that if your regpes�for,c1 .ontinuance is;received<af3er ti erappeal is;noticed fojthe-public;the
Council may not be ati1e to ht.,
t the`request f9r continuance Submitting a_request<for continuanee
does not guarantee Ebel rt wrlltie granted, that actio"n rs athe ciscretro'n ofahe .1 'Co
1 hereby agree'to appear ancUor send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal lsr;scheduled for a public hearing before the:,City Coiiircll`
n,
Signature fpdllcnt)' _- (Date),
iii.. c( ' 642
•r�o?r,�ri 70R�
This item is hereby calendared for
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Department Head M krX c(2.v L U 'E .
City Clerk(ori final)
Page 2 of 3
10/01
Attachment 9
Draft Resolution "A"
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A HIGH-OCCUPANCY
RESIDENTIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 520
GRAND STREET; APPLICATION NO. A 90-02
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in
the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose
of considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application for a
High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, Application No. A 90-02, a request to allow occupancy
of a single-family residence by eight adults; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on September 11, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application No. A 90-02, and
denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the records of the August 16, 2002
Administrative Hearing and the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, and the records
of the Planning Commission hearing on September 11, 2002; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Denial. Based upon all the evidence, the Council denies the appeal and the
proposed High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit,based on the following findings:
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone, as stated in the Zoning
Regulations (SLOMC Section 17.24.010), because of the proposed occupancy level, which
would not preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, and would lead to development of
other properties in the neighborhood with detached buildings in a manner more typical of the
City's higher density residential zones.
2. The proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan, because the proposed occupancy
level requires the construction of a detached, three-bedroom building, which is a type of
improvement that is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.10 because it does not
respect existing buildings in the neighborhood that contribute to architectural character in
terms of size,spacing and variety.
3-S"l
Attachment 9
Resolution No. (2001 Series) —
Page 2
3. The existing house on the project site is not large enough, based on the standards contained in
the High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations,to allow for more than five adult occupants
of the project site. The construction of multiple additional bedrooms in a new, detached
building is not compatible with Housing Element Policy 7.2.1 because the proposed building
is more typical of development in the City's higher density residential zones and the increased
intensity of use on this lot would be obvious to neighbors as the occupants walk back.and
forth between the main house and the detached bedrooms.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of October, 2002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i tto ey e . Jorgensen
3-S L
Attachment 10
J
Draft Resolution "B"
RESOLUTION NO: (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO APPROVING A HIGH-OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE
PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 520 GRAND STREET;
APPLICATION NO. A 90-02
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in
the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose
of considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application for a
High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, Application No. A 90-02, a request to allow occupancy
of a single-family residence by eight adults; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on September 11, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application No. A 90-02, and
denied the application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the records of the August 16, 2002
Administrative Hearing and the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer, and the records
of the Planning Commission hearing on September 11, 2002 and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at
said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
people living or working in the vicinity because the use will comply with the requirements
of the High-Occupancy Residential Use Ordinance and will be reviewed annually to insure
continued compliance.
2. As conditioned, the proposed detached bedrooms are consistent with Municipal Code
Section SLOMC 17.04.221.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan
because the project is not in conflict with Policy 2.2.12, which lists residential project
objectives for new development.
3s3
Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 2
4. Guest homes (SLOMC 17.04.22 1) are permitted by the Municipal Code and the guest
house definition does not limit or prohibit permanent as opposed to transient occupancy
of these buildings. The proposed building will have the same limitations as a guest
house.
5. As conditioned,the proposed use is consistent with the requirements of the High-Occupancy
Residential Use Regulations(SLOMC 17.93)and the Parking and Driveway Standards..
6. Occupancy of the residence by eight students is appropriate because parking is available to
serve the proposed number of occupants, consistent with the standards of the High-
Occupancy Residential Use Regulations(SLOMC 17.93).
7. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 3 (Section
15303),New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures,of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. Appeal. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal and approves
Application No. A 90-02, subject to the following conditions of approval and code requirements:
1. No more than eight adults shall reside at the residence at any one time.
2. The floor plan of the existing five-bedroom residence and/or the plans for the proposed
guest house shall reflect a minimum of 2400 square feet of gross floor area,or the number of
adult residents shall be reduced to seven.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit application for the project shall include a complete
floor plan for the existing residence and must be consistent with all of the property
development standards for High Occupancy Residential Use Permits contained in Zoning
Regulations Chapter 17.93,and for new construction in general.
4. This use permit shall be reviewed annually to insure compliance with the provisions of the
High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations. It shall be the responsibility of the property
owner to initiate the review and pay the applicable fees. At the review hearing the applicant
shall submit the lease(s) in effect at the time to insure the to insure compliance with
Condition#1 of this use permit.
5. The Hearing Officer may review the use permit upon receipt of a reasonable written citizen
complaint, upon receipt of a report from the San Luis Obispo Police Department, or if
conditions of approval are not being met. At the review hearing, the Hearing Officer may
add,delete,or modify conditions of approval, or may revoke the use permit.
6. The use permit shall be automatically scheduled for review by the Hearing Officer if two
convictions for violations of the City's Noise Ordinance are issued to residents of the
dwelling within any 6-month period.
7. A garbage enclosure, large enough to accommodate trash and recycling facilities for 8
residents, as recommended by San Luis Garbage Company, shall be provided to the
approval of the Community Development Director, outside of all requires yards.
3'S
Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 3
8. A total of 7 parking spaces shall be provided and available for parking at all times, in
compliance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. One parking space may be
located in the street yard.
9. The proposed building shall comply with all setback and height requirements contained in
the Zoning Regulations for the R-1 zoning district.
10. Driveways shall not be used for parking at any time. On-site parking shall only be allowed
in approved parking spaces, in order to insure that cars do not overhang the sidewalk and
that the proposed turf--block driveway surface is well maintained.
11. Automatic, motion sensing, lighting shall be installed in carports for safety.
12. The landscaping shown on the site plan, including the turf block driveway, shall be
installed and maintained in good condition during the life of this use permit. In addition,
a three-foot tall hedge planted parallel to the sidewalk shall be maintained to help screen
parked vehicles from the street.
Code Requirements:
1. Cooking facilities in R-congregate residence occupancies shall be considered commercial-
type food heat-processing equipment and shall be in compliance with the Mechanical Code
and National Fire Protection Standard 96.
2. The assessor's parcel map shows two record lots underlying the project site, the lots shall be
merged prior to building permit issuance for the guest.house.
3. Street trees are required at the rate of one tree per 35 feet of street frontage, to the approval
of the City Arborist.
4. Frontage improvements are required across the property and all driveways must be upgraded
to current City standards, including a sidewalk extension for ADA compatibility.
5. Noise levels in the proposed bungalow must meet the General Plan standard of 45dB, LDN,
to the approval of the Building Official.
6. All drainage from proposed improvements shall be disposed to the street, or to another
approved location,to the approval of the Building Official.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
Attachment 10
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 4
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of October, 2002.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
"/ xo���
fty tto ey f& G. Jorgensen
3 5'�