Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/03/2002, PH2 - REVISED PLAN FOR 520 GRAND, HIGH OCCUPANCY USE PERMIT (A 90-02)
ME' NG AGENDA DAT t ITEM #-TfU �uylilll!Illlii ��l�ll!�I��i� council mcmomna_ u_m oa* .u.6 �.r J city of san tuts osispo, community development aepaatment /+ 0a DATE: November 22,2002 TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Revised Plan for 520 Grand, High Occupancy Use Permit(A 90-02) The applicant for the project has submitted a revised plan for the Council's consideration at the public hearing on this item, scheduled for December 3, 2002. Attached to the plan is a cover letter from the applicant explaining the change, which is limited to the addition of a trellis structure that would connect the existing building with the proposed bedrooms. The proposed trellis would provide for a covered walkway between the two buildings that would be landscaped,possibly with a vine. An evaluation of the revised design will be presented by staff during the public hearing on this item. Staff's initial impression of the change is that it will make for a more pleasant walk between buildings, but it does not address the specific findings that the Planning Commission and staff have recommended in the resolution to deny the project (Attachment 9 of the Council Agenda Report). Using a trellis or breezeway to connect the two buildings does not constitute "attaching"the buildings, as the occupants of the addition will still have to walk outside to get to the kitchen and living room in the main residence. LACOUNCIUMM2(520 Grand Memo).doc Grand Avenue Properties 520 Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 November 20, 2002 Mr. Michael Co4-r cn, Project Planner San Luis Obispo Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Modifications to the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit Application at 520 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California creating a "Semi-Attached" 3-Bedroom Residential Addition Dear Michael: As a result of recent discussions with members of the immediate neighborhood near the 520 Grand Avenue property and future members of the San Luis Obispo City Council, Grand Avenue Properties has modified the originally submitted project site plan and exterior building elevations to incorporate a major wood trellis element along the south sides of the existing 1-story manor house and "Semi-Attached", elevated,3-bedroom residential addition planned for the project site. We believe that the addition of a semi-transparent wood trellis structure will provide a functional sun and rain shelter for residentsof the planned 3-bedroom addition and will allow a more protected (and direct) access to the large main kitchen, dining, and living room areas(located in the existing 1-story main home presently located on the westerly portion of the site). The proposed wood trellis structure will also reinforce the previously planned sound control system created by the careful placement of the elevated 3-bedroom residential addition designed,to block existing elevated highway generated sounds from the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. Additionally,the proposed trellis structure is intended to better integrate the existing 1-story "Ranch Style Home"with the planned"Ranch Style" 3-bedroom addition(incorporating identical roof pitches and similar exterior building materials to the existing 1-story main house), which is sympathetic with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Please note that the newly proposed wood trellis structure has been clearly defined on the attached modified overall project and Contextual Site Plan,Easterly, Westerly, and Northern Elevation Studies by an asterisk (*) alongside the appropriate trellis identification notes. Please contact me directly at my office number(805)544-2600 in the event you or other members of the planning staff have any further questions regarding this modified"High Occupancy Residential Use Permit" application submittal. I am sincerely, Stephen B. Barasch,AIA,APA On behalf of Grand Avenue Properties council j agenda aepoat CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 btr!-tnLted FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Dire 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). 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. Pro iect.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. a._�- 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 r 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. a-� 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. 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. 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 WmcodronkounciU520 Gmnd(A90-02).doc Attachment--i LJ Z R-1-PD LU O R-1 _ H FREDERICKS 1 -4 > z 9 LOOMIS R- i wa - -----_/ -----------------�/ ABBOTT i 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 a-9 v � a b o 1pac"nt 2 i I.. S I '��' .�. • .2 y y W .•1 a •C a •L Y ` i�+ - • •m 8 i ' 23 . •- I � � a' a M �� I' � Y � �• v i I is 'e =�' C � � �F--� •T r t Ib a h e fillL tLl I49, I' G i Z Q toO YL• I i' r Q - n Cb t J � m 3 i •i Q i i .rlti'I �•�. Q m Co p •v i F..i �.• _ p Q a J m a ------ I _ �d • = m 1 co -t IFC •� �14 �. It . , ' � � '1• n. nsc wi W = v.i(q � - 1 ---_ I[. ' W �.v....�..�.••+as i.r.a+rJ� I � O Q y' 04 W y o J ss { 11 0Lua rz RX EE F 3 i t 4 { -al O o I ' � °' � _ y' rl Q UCC Qcm CM CD o x e w g: u I — �a y d��i�ly �j =w.'^ • w a ' IV 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 — O ( Attachments 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 facilities. 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. ,� (0- Attachment 3 Ordinance No. 1 154 (19 89 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. �-t3 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: GOS 1011 i IT jC-,4C-C GR C-T CS ht 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 r on unin ATTEST: City Clerk Pam vo s APPROVED: City Ad inistrative Officer it tto ey Community Development Director a-,s. i Attachment 3 Ordinance No. 1154 FINALLY PASSED this _ 14th day of— November 19 89 on motion of Councilman Settle , seconded by I Coucilwoman Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Rappa and Pinard NOES: Councilmember Reiss ABSENT: Mayor Dunin on Dunin ATTEST: v City C1 k Pam Voges 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 corner 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. Attachment 4 Administrative Hearing - .Anutes _ 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 RQN 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. RQN 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, RQN 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 RQN 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. RQN 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 a- cq Attachment 4 Administrative Hearing ..,mutes 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," its 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. Attachment 4 Administrative Hearing - ,,dnutes 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 a44 Attachment 4 Administrative Hearing = ...mutes 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. -aa 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 Ricciexplained 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. 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. Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT [TEM#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. 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 V _ Re, uirement '"' Provi— - ; ded 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 requited recent improvements to the main permits. residence and the proposed bedrooms would go through the building permit plan check process to insure compliance. a=C 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. 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. Parking 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; �'O D- 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.) 1) 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 �r� 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 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. Ek6ni4,Commissioy Ronald Whisenand, Secretary �a'3i 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. a-3� Attachment 6 Draft Planning Commission' tes 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 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 rtes Excerpt of Item 2 September 11, M2 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 subject 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. Draft Planning Commission des 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. a=35 ,' :Attachment 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Ju!` 9 2002 Miki Gillman 1874 McCollum Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT San Luis Obispo CA 95405-2042 To: City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department and City Council Members: 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,&/or think. I am also concerned that there is insufficient space at 520 Grand and environs for the current proposal. Please do not under any circumstances increase the population density in the Monterey Heights Neighborhood. I thank you all for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, �� Miki Gillman 1 'd 1296-LVG jopla4o-4eg uatlu RJJe'l dso : lo 2a 61 iter Atta m nt, co f'I • ul1,�1t m a �r Emon . chum city of san Luis ot3ispo,, community:6evelopment aepautment DATE: July 17, 2002 a I TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo_ _^ BY: Diane Stuart, Supervising Administrative Assistarct, �� 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 comer 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. 1 �rlMklly Y_CCQCIAfd Mr. cc: Ronald Whisenand 13x1&C00T_ avVd �)CLSSOa On Michael Codron cvb0\3(�!. �n�crn1OA��oh� aS well cis -Nne c,ppeal pYocesS, He Understood -fheve. uJaS n(.,� error ort our chd iAnQv\kPd rvrne. f6r C-C'M�r� A•3'? Attachment 7 CITY Of SAN LUIS OBISPO July 16, 2002 JUL 7 2002 Community Development Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 AFr... Inh., �♦.,...1.,..:11.. 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 and party issues, traffic calrrzin5 and parlking issues, and R-1 density issues. Also, I walk to work and back every work day, Monday to Friday, to my office located on Peach Street. In doing so, I 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. I 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. Than o Larry atc el or 1874 McCollum Street - San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 phone: 543-9621 � \1 orlr-jc_ d :211, � D.1M � verc{'ti� �jin-�err�_ CSda� �cys��n�> a .3� Attachment 7 August 15, 2002 CITY Of SAN LUIS OGISPCI City of San Luis Obispo , ATTN: Administrative Hearing Officer A.W3 1 6 `'' 990 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, 0 W Sandra Rowley a -�1 - Attachment 7 gilt � RQ Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 " " Cify Of 5� AUG f 6 2iii-02)) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMLNIJ! 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 floor plan for the dwelling with the rooms clearly labeled." There is a configured floor plan shown for the new structure, however, no configured floor Oan 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. a AD 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§17.04.221]. 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. 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, &"rf Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN Attachmen CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: September 8, 2002 SEP 9 2OnQ2 To: Planning Commission Chairperson Alice Lo and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT uP >� 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 RI 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.kMerg_oup-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 sim spacing, and variety. B. Privacy and Solar Access. New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access ofnei hg borin buildings and outdoor area&particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. (See also the Energy Conservation Element.Z Attachment 7 The Program to implement neighborhood compatibility is in section "2.14 Neighborhood Compatibility". It states in its entirety, " 2.14 Neighborhood Compatibility The City will consider new re tions, 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 shape their neighborhoods. B. Help devise strategies to help stabilize.the rental/owner ratio,to maintain neighborhood character, safety, and stability. C. Help identify neighborhood problems, and undertake a wide range of focused development review, capital-improvement, and code-enforcement efforts. D. Encourage the formation ofvohntary neigLborhood groups, so residents can become involved early in the development review process. E. Involve residents early in reviewing proposed public and private projects that could have neighborhood impacts,by notifying residents and property owners and holding meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods. F. Provide appropriate staff support,possibly including a single staff person for neighborhood issues, and train all staffto be sensitive to issues of neighborhood protection and enhancement." aq -` Attachment 7 SUNEMULRY 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 Ci will• "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 R1 neighborhoods would be part of what would be covered. 4. It seems logical that the banning Commission would recommend to the City Council that guesthouse guidelines should be developed, before permitting this precedent setting guesthouse in an existing neighborhood. Sincerely, Carla Saunders Sep 10 02 04: 22p C. *-' EY HOLCOMB r"`5-894-0365 p. l Attachment 7 OV Ali all Q Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604•San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 --- '--�� CITY 0r I I September 10, 2002 COMPJIUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 Hlgh-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. a-� Sep 10 02 04: 22p C` '�NEY HOL'COMH f-9-594-0365 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: WE 2.2.10; WE 2.14; WE 2.156; 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`' YEY HOLCOMB 9 -,;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 pertainingto 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. 1 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 DAR Sep 10 02 04: 23p CY"'VEY HOLCOMH Q'�,-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 Permit!! ( 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@charterr.net> Subject: Re: 520 Grand Ave. Date: Monday, September 09, 2002 4:21 PM Well, Planning is processing the High Oce. 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. �-A9 ATTACHMENT #8 City 0f SEP 13 2002 San IDIS OBISPO SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Gfz/!-ND f+V6Nt)C- FA0PorR?18=5 — Z&02 OL- 067.104 7a 54-01 0::�o+ 9340/ Name Mailing Address and Zip Code t6or • Ste- - 26 00 &OS • S-44 —3 ZVO Phone Fax S7Y'IfENRomp-�{ Sia 44-.9 . Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Pie, -rY eomerwrjmve poS•59�2600�8os• S44-3 Zoe 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: SAIV "/S 00/-Vo PI��iV//V& 4bM11411rsAoN (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: S#7 � 200 Z 3. The application or project was entitled: 520 ��� � WIV / A 9O.^OZ �fJ6ff 04w10AW0y /fN 0/OBN77AZ flAff MRAIrr 1+. K.144.7 ON 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. /y1/G/�il'frL GBD..N��// /`>ssoci�le P/armu- on (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date) SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionis you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeaf. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 a Reason for Appeal continued n'�' iu�' d�t,�� � a� �-t 52o Com• � fhjh Du AV 01J a, �►�►eur C�fJr. --wca'r fL+.�eGol,��,,� fog rs,� R � �a+�ca. G � �-►+ /ems// 2ar2 �ime�r arks U/ Vvie 71tLP ,,rr...� a,1.1 Ga�2��!ofd+��ae ie�PirJ 520 @rr W04 kta r Z "EECIDN -Y:"0" a 1 at 'i> F a ir4 .c 3 Y �, - - ..,ry ° et,x•: 3' >^ _ �. n .. ,`� n f- '�4 ° �,`k4 Ad i]ter n � •"'�' ryv,.c'� ..� �t t 4 , thg San L4us abisdtty�ounail tralues,public particpaor�Tri( galov, mriintrtl a u encouca es alfformsie �rvlrernera� �" ►e, ` nt�ke6 mFaltfa � lip s "y r.t ♦ 2 +—v ,`F_., m._„_, > z _J� y a. .s hat , v t;a I yea for fillrig an�apeal )lo�uppac cghaPAeaeoaatxe GttCoun [, e4uirgs ,it a' a2 G e v v Y•, t �w r r 511 A consideCable work gad cost,Yr�ciuglnagenda Xepo �p earaorJ affca Iicribfijicab�t hereffl(e;yoU�;ngbt tsa e5�erise an'appeal�c©rniesie sites y�or .fi)e` n r x p^Sx.Y r 'Yrs^ ppe$t{please uoderstandbt It rra�st' e heed�nnt X15°d � Iirgat u . om1, Y qv notified�n vnting Mere�tact1aer, pea� vill $s' ed�1a �je ffe�ard befQretie council Y�i�or youreresen#at�ve a�vill bexpected" otenc� j`� IiCieari to be, make our a se '` ' ' Y a �. ur3estlmon' � �}+. �y.;W.t � asi a r ttiks, 111`{ryp �(t` Zw � . A:continuance::rnay a raMe UndercertaitiAarrid,Wuna-s,aj, irauq�staraces hf�you;feetjrou . need Yb request a cadtirld'a— I'YPLr ast subm►tyout req Ie f Ih4dt1Pg_A6%th'e�sCity Cleirk Please be advised that if yourxegaes�lor;continua_1% is xeceive&iftedh ekl ys.noticed 4b1the ubli�the, i. 1' p - . Gbuncil rnay.notbe Ule to"tgra,*th fe uastfgr confi uan g.L u is ifGnga r$gaest or�ntinuarJce : . does not guarantee that ft.-*ICbe granted y4tii�aact�onn`" ath`ecTetionWlhe Crly`GaunciC. 1 hereby agree'to appearaand%rsed reeSentb to apearon mrbehalf when .said appeal is.scheduled for ,pu6ic %ear�ng liege?�ief#r C�otmcil. Signature of Apodllan'f) x �ai 4 • �R f�� � , 7s-rrr�' This item Is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative officer Department Head City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 gaol 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. oC 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 a . Jorgensen �-5 3 Attachment 10 Draft Resolution "B" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TBE 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. a SA Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 2 4. Guest homes (SLOMC 17.04.221) 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-0ccupancy 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. 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: a -s� 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: S /h fty%tto ey WG. Jorgensen o�'S� Steve Delmartini To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Cc: Lee Price and Michael Codron Subject: 520 Grand Ave. Appeal by Steven Barasch I urge you to approve the permit to allow Mr. Barasch to complete his addition to the property at 520 Grand as stated in his application and in his statements regarding the changes that were made pertaining to the Planning Commissions concerns about the detached building. As you are aware, the location of the property is unique. I believe this makes it more conducive to the type of development that has been applied for. The project is consistent with the performance standards contained in the High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations and as far as I'm. aware meets the "defined" requirements of the High Occupancy Regulations. It appears Mr. Barasch has attempted to meet the set requirement standards, so I believe the issue includes not only fairness by the City of San Luis Obispo to the applicant but deals with private property rights as well. Once again I urge you to look at this as an opportunity to allow some infill housing in a location conducive to the applicant's request. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. S Sincerely, Steve Delmartini RECEIVED 962 Mill St. San Luis -Obispo, Ca. 93401 pEC+ 0 2 2002 SLO CITY CLERK r Omg.0 Z COUNC YCDD DIR i RED FILE �CAO 15'FIN DIR ! MEETING AGENDA OArroRNEY ffPW CHIEF CLERK/ORIG DPW DIR DATEITEM #`LRa r (57 HEADS Z POLIC1RCHF j If UTIL DIR i CIR I 1 RECEIVED <Hom:e9Bdders Association OF THE CENTRAL COAST NOV 2 v 2002 SLO CITY CLERK Nov.27,2002 Dear Mayor Dave Romero and the San Luis Obispo City Council: The Home Builders Association of the Central Coast supports residential infill projects as a way for communities to provide a wider range of affordable housing options. The association believes that healthy,well-planned communities give their citizens the opportunity to find and afford the type of housing each person seeks near where they want to live,work or attend school. Smart land use policies should encourage and provide for more affordable housing opportunities within existing urban neighborhoods to serve those who want to live near where they work,play and learn. Infill can be an innovative land use in modem urban planning. It can help prevent sprawl,preserve open space and environmentally sensitive rural areas,reduce the need to expand infrastructure and is pedestrian-friendly.It allows more people to live in urban areas,cutting down traffic congestion and pollution as residents can walk, bicycle or use public transit rather than drive their car for every errand. Higher density infill projects are particularly desirable on larger lots in areas around a college campus.They serve students who do not need large living spaces and want to be within walking distance of school. If more students can live near their school,there will be fewer students competing for housing against families seeking affordable rental housing elsewhere in our county. Neighborhood opposition to well-planned housing risks penalizing Californians who now live at the edge of housing affordability—the young,minorities, immigrants and even work force families unable to find housing to rent or buy in today's high-demand,low-supply market. The Home Builders Association encourages the City Council to support infill,higher density and mixed-use developments that meet the needs of its citizens.. Jerry Bunin Government Affairs Director Home Builders Association of the Central Coast t RED FILE .PI COUNCIL e CDD DIR - MEETING AGENDA ICAO ZFIN DIR 8 ACAO ;y FIRE CHIEF DATE,'<Lr� &ITEM # #A 'ATTORNEY ;Z PW DIR Q CLERK/ORIG Qi POLICE CHF ❑ DEU HEADS Z REC DIR u . 01 IL.DIR `PI 0'HR DIR PO Box 13010 805.546.0418:phone 2078 Parker Street, Suite 210 805.546.0339:fax San Luis Obispo,California 93406-3010 www.hbacc.com:internet RED FILE 1359 Oceanaire Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ME AGENDA �Au November 25, 2002 DA 143/03-ITEM # r nI� Honorable Mayor and Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 RE: High-occupancy permit application for 520 Grand Avenue(at Loomis Street) San Luis Obispo Dear Councilmembers: We own a home and a senior citizen rental property in San Luis Obispo and have lived here since the 1970s. Our neighborhood in the Laguna Lake area has changed considerably over the years and is now easily half student rentals. In part because of this situation, we are writing to urge your approval of this addition at Grand and Loomis near Cal Poly, to help relieve the student overcrowding in family neighborhoods like ours. We have carefully reviewed the plans proposed by Mr. Barasch. It appears to us that this project will provide much-needed student housing in a neighborhood close to Cal Poly on a lot that is less than desirable for any other residential use because of its proximity to the freeway. The two-story design is consistent with at least two other two-story residences immediately across the street, including one with detached bedrooms over an existing garage. This design may actually dampen the freeway noise. It also neatly provides for the required off-street parking and will give the units a balcony and view not available at ground level. This seems to be a good example of"infill"development. It will not only provide much needed housing;the new construction will also improve the appearance of the area It is our understanding that this proposal meets all existing requirements for a high-occupancy use permit, requires no variances, and is not opposed by the neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the proposed addition. Each"infill"project should be looked at individually and should stand on its own merits, not on a supposed"precedent" set by some other project. This transitional site is an excellent candidate for this type of addition for all the reasons cited above and because the project site is an unusually large lot for the area and is surrounded by vacant lots to the north, a freeway onramp to the west,and the U.S. 101 right of way and R-4 lots to the south. There are few if any other similar"infill" sites that meet all the high occupancy performance standards as defined in the San Luis Obispo zoning ordinance and that are large enough to accommodate an appropriate addition. This is why the city has set size and parking requirements,to encourage quality infill development and discourage degrading, unsuitable profiteering. Mig �COOUNCIL gr CDD DIR FIN DIR RECEIVED Z 2fATTORNEY Z PW D RHIEF NOV 2 5 2002 ZT CLERK/ORIG C'POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS C REC DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL M!hn,ni, 2' UTIL DIR Zr..21'b ja'HR DIR Members of the City Council November 25, 2002 Page Two From every perspective,this is a quality project that will be good for our city. The development of student-oriented housing such as this close to Cal Poly will free up other rental homes for families, who are in desperate housing straits. This in turn will help preserve R-1 neighborhoods like ours from becoming multiple-student rental neighborhoods,which is truly becoming a citywide concern. We trust this information will be helpful to you and hope you will give this project your endorsement. Very truly yours, JIM AND LESLIE HALLS cc: Mr. Michael Codron, Case Planner