HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2004, PH1 - HOUSING ELEMENT HEARINGS Richard Schmidt �- 4 544-Mo HU: M2/2314
-- MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED
To the City Council DATE ITEM #`� 1 FEB 2 u 2004
From Richard Schmidt
Feb. 20, 2004 Re: Housing Element Hearin SLO CITY CLERK
Re: Housing Density
I'd like to offer you this "white paper" on "density." It's the sort of analysis one might
expect to get from a helpful staff, but since you didn't, it's coming from the public.
Hope you find it interesting and provocative.
DGE@02W
The draft Housing Element proposes that the city increase density everywhere. It also proposes
density be promoted by relaxing current design and development regulations, and blurring zoning
distinctions so that "low density" no longer means low density.
Before imposing such a major change on the fabric of our residential city, it would be
prudent to review some recent examples of "density" and see whether they are worthy exemplars
for promotion as the wave of the future; also, whether in light of these examples, current design
standards merit further weakening. We will look in some detail at two examples, one in the R-1
zone, the other in a high density zone. We will conclude with some reference to practice in Davis,
CA, and with a historical view of the development of slum cities via.Lewis Mumford.
303 Foothill. Single Family Zone
This was an older house on a large lot.. A speculator purchased the property, and applied for
subdivision into four lots, with three rear yard lots accessible only from an on-site driveway. The
subdivision required setback exceptions. It was approved nonetheless.
As a condition of the subdivision, houses on the lots required architectural review. This was
because of compatibility concerns since houses on the new lots would be next to the back yards of
neighborhing residences. Architectural review was handled as "minor and incidental" by staff.
Three houses have now been built on the vacant lots.
The houses are pretty much the same, with minor variations. They consist of a minimal
living area, including food preparation, and five bedrooms on the main floor. Each also has what
the plans refer to as a "family room" on the upper story, approachable by stairs on the outside of
the building. On some plans, a full bath is shown within this "family room," on others an outline
indicating "future bath." The houses are so huge they pretty much fill their lots. There is little to no
private outdoor usable yard, no place other than the shared driveway for children to play. They are
what real estate agents call "all house, no lot," facing a private driveway instead of a steet.
Meanwhile, the original house at 303 Foothill was left with so little back yard that the owners
are currently developing paved, fenced-in "usable" "recreation space" in the front yard, adjacent to
that busy thoroughfare.
Analysis.
The three new houses are not homes, they are speculative dormitories designed for rental to
students (6 bedrooms), or for rental to students in the main house (5 bedrooms), and to someone
else in a "family room" granny unit. All this is obvious from the plans.
The single family zone is set aside for homes with "private open space associated with
individual dwellings" and to "preserve existing single-family neighborhoods" and "provide for
compatible infill development in such areas." (City code: 17.24.010) This development fails on all
three counts.
Page 1, Density
Richard Schmidt V 5444247 X12/23/4 O 1:33 PM D2/5
Several issues are worth commenting on.
1. Second units. Since it is illegal to rent a secondary unit unless an owner lives on the premises,
and since the owner was a speculative builder, staff wrote a covenant stating no permission has
been granted for the second unit (which it nonetheless allowed to be built). This fig leaf may satisfy
the minimum legal requirement (and it also saves the builder over $10,000 in fees), but it hardly
changes the fact a speculative second unit has been built, and can have a kitchen slipped in and
be rented at any time, and unless the city receives a complaint it wishes to follow-up on, the illegal
unit will continue to be rented ad infinitum. We can cite examples where this has happened.
The spec construction of secondary units by builders who have no intention of ever
occupying any part of the property themselves is a deeply disturbing one. It is increasingly
common; the city permits this, even though it flies in the face of the rationale for the ordinance.
Among its effects, the cost of owning a spec-built home in SLO goes up every time a
secondary unit is included in such construction (whether or not the unit is legal) -- by something in
the neighborhood of $150,000. This places homeownership out of bounds for even more families.
Furthermore, how many homeowners really want to be landlords? What the spec construction of
multiple units on single family lots really does is to build ready-made speculator properties, with
absentee landlords, who are interested only in profit, and not in making a stable neighborhood
where families can live. This destabilizes our established neighborhoods.
Since the draft housing element proposes significantly increasing the number of homes
where secondary units are built, the effect of this proposed loosening of restrictions needs to be
looked at with an honest eye on its detrimental effects on city housing policy. The outlines of a
dismal critique of the proposed loosening of second unit regulations can be seen in 303 Foothill.
2. Architectural Review. One of the proposals in the draft housing element would loosen
architectural review requirements, taking more of those responsibilities away from citizen advisors
and giving them to staff in the interest of "streamlining." So, it's worth reviewing how well staff
review works, using this project as an example.
The layout of the huge houses on their lots conforms to little more than mandatory setback
requirements. The provision of R-1 zone quality family outdoor space has not been achieved. This
would seem to be a primary function of architectural review.
Permitting six bedroom houses clearly designed as dormitories might also have been an
issue addressed in architectural review. The record shows neighbors raised the issue of the site
becoming dense student housing, and their concerns were not heeded.
The "family rooms" are beyond belief. Nobody could miss that these were either sixth
bedrooms, or separate units, and had no resemblance to "family rooms." Family Rooms are
customarily at the heart of a home, not outside and upstairs. In reviewing them, staff said they
have architectural merit -- they added architectural interest! Of course, had they been connected to
the house and bedrooms reduced accordingly, this issue might have been dealt with more
legitimately; an upstairs bedroom would have added "architectural interest" without skirting the law.
ARC commission-level review seldom results in such superficial permissiveness and
obiescence to the developer's wink-and-nod requests. This project should be Exhibit A in favor of
greater design review, not less.
3. Dem. The prescribed density in the R-1 Zone is one house per normal lot. This is called low
density residential zoning. It is generally assumed this means less density than would be allowed
in medium or high density zones.
A comparison of bedroom counts, since that is the basis for zoning densities in all but the R-
1 zone, shows an amazing fact about this project's density.
Page 2, Density
Richard Schmidt _ 'Q 5444247 12/23/4 01:35 PM D 315
The three newly-built houses have 18 bedrooms. This is vee y dense. For example, had the
three lots been zoned R-3, medium high density, only 15 bedrooms would have been allowed. This
"low density" project has a greater density than an R-3 project could have had! This shows the
potential for gaming the system by coming up with clever ways to develop to a higher density than
even a rezoning would allow. This development, given the city's follow-the-precedent standard of
development permitting, sets a dangerous and undesirable precedent.
Isn't it odd that it is possible to build to a greater density in a "low density zone," where one
of the zone's purposes is providing "compatible infill development," than in an R-3 zone?
And this is under the current regulations, which proponents of the draft housing element
claim provides too little density. Surely, their claim cannot be taken seriously when the present
zoning regime provides opportunities for density abuse like 303 Foothill.
4. High Occupancy Ordinance. The city limits occupancy of single family homes under its "six-plus"
ordinance, which requires a use permit for large occupancies. The purpose of this ordinance is to
promote neighborhood compatibility and stability.
So why is the city permitting new houses which on their face are prima facia violations of
this ordinance? How can a 6-bedroom house designed to be a student dormitory be anything other
than a violation?
This trend among spec developments is popping up all over town. Why? It would seem
relataively simple for the city to say: no more than 5 bedrooms without a permit. Instead, the city
excuses violations by allowing fig leaves like "family rooms" with full baths in locations family
rooms make no sense. "See, only 5 bedrooms, no violation."
By contrast, other cities (including Santa Barbara) are raising the alarm about huge
bedroom-rich houses, and to promote home ownership affordability are developing mechanisms to
make sure that houses really are houses, and are even looking at ways to limit how much can be
added onto an existing house as a way to head off gentrification of relatively affordable houses.
5. Neighborhood Compatibility- This project was subject to architectural review because of
legitimate concerns about neighborhood compatibility. So why did review not protect the
neighbors? Already, people behind the project, on Ramona, are upset. When they move on
because of the nuisance, their places will become rentals as well. The intrusion of such high
density into a neighborhood destabilizes the whole area. We should know this already: the R-4/R-1
boundary between the Valencia Apartments and Verde Drive and Luneta has set in motion a
neighborhood-wide disruption, which spreads outward in concentric rings. The city seems happy to
continue to promote this transition of whole neighborhoods from family occupancy to speculator
ownership, in direct conflict with its pledge to protect established neighborhoods.
One would think that architectural review to promote neighborhood compatibility might mean
making sure new houses were family homes that fit in, rather than speculative dormitories that
intrude. The fig leaf of architectural review applied to the subdivision failed to protect the
neighborhood.
Long before any consideration of still greater density in R-1 zones is enthroned, this
breakdown of the city's protective function needs to be cured, and the cure proven to work.
3051 Augusta, R-4 Zone.
This is a long, narrow, previously vacant lot of about .82 acre area. A developer approached the
city about building nine 3- or 4-bedroom single family homes in the 1,600 to 2,000 square foot
range, with a total bedroom count of about 31.' The development would have been crowded, but
' It is difficult to tell the exact bedroom count from the file, but 31 appears to be the count. It may,
however, be plus or minus a couple.
Page 3, Density
Richard Schmidt - 12 5444247 M2/2314 (D1:36 PM D 4/5
managed to provide useful outdoor space for each unit, suitable fug ramilies, and each building was
separated from its neighbor by green space. Indeed, the developer said these would be modestly
priced family homes, a market niche sorely needed in SLO.
The city rejected the proposal, saying it wasn't dense enough. In its place, we now have 18
units, with 39 bedrooms, crammed onto a site too small to hold such density with any grace or
decency. There is no useful open space (other than the dreary driveway that runs down the center
of the project), no kid-friendly space, no separation worth talking about between buildings into
which several units are jammed. It is a dismal project lacking in all merit. It shows just how awful a
project can be and still meet the city's current standards. It is nothing more than a human and
automotive warehouse, lacking totally in esthetic amenity. And all this for an extra 8 bedrooms!
The project is also unfriendly to its neighbors. The units rely on the overlook of those
neighbors to keep occupants from feeling they are imprisoned within its bounds. The project
required numerous exceptions, including setback exceptions, to achieve its density. The density
itself appears to be slightly greater than would normally be allowed.
If this project were the prototype for the future, and it was bordered by similar characterless
warehouse projects of similar density and setback, we will have achieved the creation of a slum
district. In fact, if its neighbor were similarly packed onto its site, with similar setbacks, spitting from
the balconies or windows of one project to those of the other might be the most entertaining form of
recreation available.
Does it serve the human spirit to pack people into such dismal living conditions? Do we
really want to surrender the high standard of amenities, even for the poor, which we formerly had
for this sort of dreadful living place? If we do, who will live in our city? Will anyone live here who
could afford to live elsewhere? Will San Luis Obsipo become the Santa Ana of our county?
Davis.
Davis has been held up as an example for our city to follow. Indeed, Davis has done some things
well which we have done poorly, and which the draft Housing Element would have us do even less
well. One of these is the preservation and enhancement of existing single family neighborhoods.
The Davis neighborhood immediately north of the UCD campus is one of the city's older
neighborhoods. Like Alta Vista in SLO, it is a short walk from campus, and was built out by the late
1950s mainly to provide professors homes. By the mid-1960s, city growing pains were leading
speculators to purchase these homes for student housing and for other speculative ventures
(fraternities, apartments, etc.). They said the neighborhood was adjacent to campus, and it was
only a matter of time till it would succumb to their whims, so why not upzone it and get on with
things. Also, traffic on the streets through the neighborhood, which led from the newer part of town
to the campus, was increasing and was becoming a quality of life problem. .
However, after several tumultuous city council meetings, Davis listened to its citizens. They
did not want their neighborhood destroyed. They did not want to be upzoned. They asked the city
to help preserve their neighborhood, arguing it was a city asset to maintain good homes -- homes
that were attractive to professionals -- on large lots right next to the campus. The city listened, and
acted by, among other things, refusing to change the zoning or do anything else to encourage
neighborhood density and decline, and by adopting a long-range circulation plan that offered
alternatives for traffic other than these streets. I know this story well; my family resided a half block
from campus in the heart of the area whose future everyone wondered about in the 1960s.
Davis stuck to its commitment to the neighborhood. Forty years later, the wisdom of this
choice by the city is obvious. The neighborhood today is even better than it was 40 years ago. The
houses have almost all been fixed up, made nicer, and show evident "pride of ownership." The
area is not full of students. There are no intrusive apartments to rip apart the neighborhood fabric.
And, perhaps most amazingly, though the city is nearing ten times its population in 1964, traffic on
Page 4, Density
Richard Schmidt 'Q 5444247 ON2123/4 G 1:38 PM D 515
those streets is less than 40 ye'ar's ago. This shows what a city's u„tNavering long-term
commitment to protecting its neighborhoods can do.
Yes, we can learn a lot from Davis. One lesson is that density everywhere makes no sense,
and, in fact, is counterproductive to the long-range interests of the city in maintaining a diverse
population. Preserving our existing older single family neighborhoods, close in-town, is one of the
best investments in its future San Luis Obispo City can make.
Slums.
That great lover of cities and urban historian, Lewis Mumford, wrote that slums didn't just happen,
or result merely from buildings becoming old, they were planned and built with slum qualities.
Mumford wrote eloquently and despairingly of the rise of slum cities, first in Europe, then in
America. The irony is that some of the worst slums were planned as idealistic high density sanitary
and humane housing for the "workforce," many by philanthropic organizations or well-to-do
humanitarians. The designers' good intent didn't make these tenements into decent places to live.
As people crowded into dense slum cities, all who could afford to leave left. There was a
mass exodus of the well-to-do from city, past suburb, to the countryside. Within cities, open space
was rapidly built over. Land values were so high new buildings crowded more and more people
onto each lot. Older low-rise, low-density buildings were torn down and replaced first by 3 and 4
story buildings, subsequently by 5 and 6 stories. Lots were overcrowded, green backyards
disappeared, there were no longer green places in yards and along streets, children had no safe
place to play, dwelling units lacked daylight (because they were jam packed up against their
neighbors -- so "light shafts," dismal little holes between buildings, became the main sorce of light
and air), and still, rents continued to rise. Slum housing became the norm for a large percentage of
the population, not just for the poorer sorts and criminal element. Windows, at best, looked out
onto blank walls of the adjacent building, or into a window in that adjacent wall. "The standards,"
Mumford wrote, "that were first applied to the dwellings of the poor were ... progressively embodied
in the homes of the middle and upper classes." This sort of building embodied an utter indifference
to the elementary necessities of hygiene and amenity, but it continued because it was profitable
and cities did nothing to stop it.
This should be a cautionary history lesson. We CAN destroy a wonderful city through short-
sighted planning, (LA was a lovely place, with amenities like SLO, within my own early lifetime.)
Already, many of the vocal advocates of a denser San Luis Obispo have left the city for gated
communities in the country or for homes in other less dense communities, demonstrating but the
first wave of a larger tide sure to follow if the quality of life here dips much lower. Their advocacy
for something which they will not have to live with, but from which they stand to profit, seems
hypocritical at best. 3051 Augusta should alert us all to the potential for degrading quality of living
to the point where we are, indeed, building slums.
Conclusion. Obsession with density is unwise. We can have dense developments (SLO is already
a very dense city) that preserve amenity, and provide decent places to live without destroying the
green fabric of our city. In the 1970s, when "design creativity" meant just that, and not trying to
squeeze the maximum numer of units and profit from a project, we created prototypes worth
remembering: Serrano Sircle (R-1), Los Verdes Park (R-1), and Cedarwood condos (11295 LOVR,
R-3), among others. These are projects which hold up today as pleasant places to live, not slums.
Rather than relax our standards, we need to understand why we've lost what our standards once
provided, and set out to recapture the humane spark we've losttc� ��e -Lat►el Itrd� Eolc�e.
�Z CAO FIN DIR
P1ACAO ! FIRE CHIEF
a"ATTORNEY J 'PW DIR
.21'CLERK/0RIG POLICE CHF
Page 5, Density 13 D T HEADS � REC DIR
r-- AriWoL
JZ UTIL DIR
- �1_lb 2'HR DIR