HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-2014 PC MinutesSAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 12, 2014
CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William
Riggs, Vice - Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John
Larson
Absent: Commissioner Hemalata Dandekar
Staff: Deputy Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim
Murry, Assistant Planner Erik Berg- Johansen, Assistant Planner Walter
Oetzell, Housing Programs Manager Tyler Corey, Assistant City
Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of October 22, 2014, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City -Wide. GPI /ER 15 -14: Housing Element Update: Planning Commission
recommendation to City Council to approve the Housing Element Update and
proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; City of San Luis Obispo —
Community Development Dept., applicant. (Tyler Corey)
Housing Programs Manager Corey presented the staff report, recommending adoption
of the resolution which recommends that the City Council approve the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact and adopt the 2014 Housing Element.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Steve Delmartini, SLO, made the following comments about the Housing Element:
a. He noted that Policy 2.1 does not make any reference to workforce housing,
and he encouraged the City to develop policies for this.
b. He stated that the Moylan Terrace development achieved Goal 4.6 with the
only difference between the affordable and market rate units being white vs.
stainless appliances.
c. He encouraged placing housing near employment centers (Goal 5.3) and noted
that the Broad Street/-Tank Farm area needs this type of housing, whether for
sale or for rent.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 2
d. He stated that Policy 7.1 which deals with neighborhood character is a tough
policy to meet where single - family detached housing is adjacent to higher
density housing or non - residential areas.
e. He stated that he is not sure how Policy 7.8 Neighborhood Stabilization can be
achieved.
f. He supports allowing PD zoning on less than an acre. He also noted that
Policies 11.2 and 11.3 may pose challenges for existing manufacturing uses in
areas such as the Broad Street corridor.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari complimented staff on the Housing Element Update and noted that the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approval
process is difficult and does not take into account local community issues. He added
that the City has not been allowed to account for Cal Poly housing in meeting the local
housing needs allocation despite its impact on housing availability. He suggested
changing the wording of Program 1.4 to clearly state rehabilitation objectives. He stated
he will not support the update if Policy 1.6 remains in place and added that he has
expressed concern before about this residential inspection program which he thinks
should be oriented only to life safety issues. He noted that this policy, as presented, will
result in the creation of a bureaucracy with new staff that, after dealing with the most
egregious violations, will be incentivized to find less and less egregious problems. He
stated that this policy is not necessary because the City already has other ways to
protect housing stock and the program will be intrusive, expensive, and not a good way
to spend community resources. He noted that the City's Neighborhood Wellness
Program already takes action on issues. He supported removing Policy 1.6.
Commr. Multari stated that the HCD requires the monitoring and tracking in Program
3.12 without consideration for the City's budget. He asked staff if they are comfortable
that "basic quality' in Program 4.6 clearly indicates that basic does not mean equal.
Housing Programs Manager Corey responded that 4.6 is a program that will come back
to the Commission for further discussion regarding how "basic quality" is applied.
Commr. Multari noted that he has previously expressed his displeasure with the
proactive enforcement in Program 7.13 because it has diminished, not increased,
neighborliness. He ended his comments by repeating that his biggest concern is Policy
1.6, which he would like to remove from the Housing Element Update.
Commr. Larson asked if Policy 1.6, enacting a rental inspection program, is the same as
proactive code enforcement or does it envision something above and beyond that.
Housing Programs Manager Corey responded that it was above and beyond that and
will be up for consideration by the City Council. Deputy Director Murry added that the
City Council had directed that the Residential Inspection Program is part of a Council-
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 3
identified Major City Goal and that staff is bringing forward a study session in order to
receive direction from the Council regarding the parameters of the program.
Commr. Riggs asked if there are pieces of the Housing Element that have been made
consistent with the updated General Plan and asked what the path forward will be for
that.
Deputy Director Murry responded that the Housing Element is about how to achieve the
housing goals in the General Plan and that the element is consistent with both the
existing and proposed Land Use Element.
Commr. Riggs stated that, in that case, the path for this goes forward whether or not the
LUCE Update gets approved.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the Housing Element can stand on its own and noted
that the opportunity sites pursued in the LUCE Update could still come in individually for
consideration if the LUCE Update is not approved.
Commr. Riggs complimented staff for their work on the Housing Element Update. He
noted that he is concerned by Policy 1.6 and supports removing it from the Housing
Element. He agreed with Mr. Delmartini's comments except on Program 4.6. He stated
that the language in this program is appropriate and that there is a basic human right to
housing. He referred to Policy 7.1 as being overly restrictive and suggested that the
word "respect" would be more appropriate than the word "preserve" when referring to
neighborhood character.
Commr. Draze noted that HCD did allow the City to count Cal Poly housing in 2004.
He stated that he knows the City Council wants the Rental Inspection Program in Policy
1.6 and asked staff if this program could still be developed if it was removed from the
Housing Element Update.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that Policy 1.6 exists in the current Housing
Element and that the Council may enact a rental inspection program regardless of
whether the policy is included in the updated Housing Element.
Commr. Draze supported removing Policy 1.6 since removing it does not stop Council
action from happening. In reference to Program 4.6, he stated that, since affordable
housing is not housing as an investment, it is not important to have the same quality as
non - restricted units. He suggested striking "size" and "amenities" while retaining
"number of bedrooms." He noted that Program 6.11 was originally included because
the City did not want to see developers design large properties with large lots in
residential expansion areas. He stated that he does not like removing the last
sentence entirely but would prefer it be edited to capture the concept of not supporting
proposals that propose densities "significantly less than" those planned for in the
specific plans.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 4
Deputy Director Murry stated that the sentence in Program 6.11 was removed because
the previous Resolution that set up phasing plans for the specific plans was rescinded
and was replaced by a reference to the Land Use Element Table which shows the
anticipated 1 % growth allowed under growth management.
Commr. Draze responded that he wanted to ensure that density in the expansion areas
would not be reduced and stated that he is supportive of the rest of the update and
complimented staff on their work.
Commr. Fowler asked whether the goal of Policy 1.6 is to get into every house or just
into the rental units that need attention.
Deputy Director Murry responded that the study session with City Council is intended to
obtain direction regarding the parameters of the inspection program.
Commr. Larson stated there was at least one project in the last year with an egregious
violation of the number of sleeping rooms in a rental unit and his guess is that the City is
looking for a proactive way to get ahead this and not have gross code violations occur.
Commr. Fowler stated that he wants further discussion on Policy 1.6 and noted that the
City does have other ways to get into troubled properties. He stated he is struggling
with Program 4.6 and noted that affordable housing tends to be put in the worst
locations, which troubles him. He stated that he likes the trend to integrate these units
within development projects. He added that he is torn over the issue of size because
home buyers who cannot afford the bells and whistles would find it hard to afford the
same size and quality as non - restricted units. He emphasized his concern about not
relegating affordable housing to the least desirable areas of land.
Commr. Malak complimented staff on their work and stated he agrees with Commr.
Multari about Policy 1.6 because the City has enough laws to do this. He added that he
almost agrees with Commr. Draze about Program 4.6 but would also like to take out
"number of bedrooms." He noted that he has seen developments that have affordable
duplexes on corners that look just like adjacent single - family homes. He added that this
program stifles the creativity of the developers because they cannot meet all the criteria.
He supported amending this policy to require that affordable units "be of similar
character and basic quality' as the non - restricted units.
After a discussion, Commr. Malak supported adding "location" to his suggested wording
for Policy 1.6. He asked staff if Program 6.22 is in place now.
Housing Programs Manager Corey responded that it is in place now and is a benefit to
smaller projects because it is a less costly and more expeditious review process.
Commr. Malak suggested adding "and Green Point Rated programs" just after "LEED
program" in Policy 9.1.(1) so two environmental checklists would be mandatory.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 5
Commr. Riggs stated that LEED is not associated with the environmental process and is
not a requirement so it may be better to use "or" rather than "and."
Deputy Director Murry indicated that Commr. Riggs was correct and Commr. Malak
agreed to the change.
Commr. Multari stated that the intent of Program 4.6 is in line with the comment by
Commr. Riggs that the City should be providing housing as a right and it should be
comparable to the non - restricted units. He noted that requiring the same size is going
overboard, but that the intent is to force those affordable units to be similar, and that
"amenities" could be taken out if "basic quality' is included. He added that the City
should avoid segregation of affordable units and should not allow them to be put in the
worst locations, which is a common problem. He summarized by suggesting that "size"
and "amenities" be removed from Program 4.6 and "location" be added to avoid
segregation. In response to a question from Commr. Malak, he stated that he wanted to
leave "similar number of bedrooms" in.
Commr. Malak stated that, if you look at the needs of seniors and handicapped in the
community, a development with only 3 -4 bedroom units would not be appealing so a
portion of the community would be excluded from that development. He supported
wording that stated the affordable units shall have at least one bedroom.
Commr. Draze stated that the word "similar' deals with this and he wants to see
bedrooms and a reference to location included.
Commr. Malak stated that he is concerned that if the same number of bedrooms is
required, it will result in three -story town homes which will eliminate the handicapped
and possibly seniors.
Commr. Draze stated that requiring the same number of bedrooms does not preclude
those with limited abilities because projects can be designed to deal with those issues.
Commr. Riggs noted that these are really complex important issues, but that Program
4.6 is really just a suggestion to consider amending a policy so perhaps this
conversation is a little premature.
Commr. Malak stated he would prefer to finalize Program 4.6 now, rather than later.
Commr. Draze suggested striking "devoted to automobiles" from Program 9.9.
At this point, Commr. Draze made a motion to strike Policy 1.6 that was seconded by
Commr. Malak and discussion ensued.
Commr. Fowler stated he would like to hear from staff before striking Policy 1.6.
Deputy Director Murry responded that in a community with older housing stock and with
a high percentage of rentals vs. owner - occupied housing, the concern is the
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 6
degradation and safety of the housing. She added that Neighborhood Wellness efforts
can address exterior conditions but getting inside the dwelling allows for safety
inspection. She noted that, currently, if a complaint is received, staff can get inside if
consent is obtained from the owner or resident, but a rental inspection program would
provide a regular way to do that. She asked that Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere
add any additional information.
Commr. Draze noted that he is not saying he would vote against this program if it came
up as code, but that there is just not enough information about it now and it does not
need to be in the Housing Element Update.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that if there is an imminent threat to safety,
consent is not needed to enter a house, but otherwise consent and probable cause are
required. He added that, if this program is in place, probable cause would not be
needed and, if consent is not given, then staff is able to get an inspection warrant.
Commr. Fowler stated that trying to beef up enforcement is one thing but having a
policy that means getting into each and every house is something he cannot support.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that when a complaint is received, consent
to enter can come from either the occupant or the owner.
Commr. Multari stated that an educational program for tenants about safety violations
would be better and that Policy 1.6 will make housing more expensive, increase costs,
hassle, and the potential that the problems discovered will not be about life /safety
shortly after the program is in place.
Commr. Malak stated that after hearing the Assistant City Attorney, he wants Policy 1.6
out totally. He noted he does not want someone coming to his door without a court
order.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Malak, to strike Program 1.6 from
the Housing Element Update.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Dandekar
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to adopt the resolution
which recommends that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and adopt the 2014 Housing Element with the following
amendments:
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 7
a. Restate language for 1.4 to clarify rehabilitation objectives.
b. Amend Program 4.6 to remove "size" and "amenities" and add "in locations that
avoid segregation of such units ".
c. Change "preserves" to "respects" in Policy 7.1.
d. Include "or GreenPoint " just after "LEED" in Policy 9.1(1)
e. Replace "paving devoted to automobiles" in Policy 9.9 with "impermeable
surface ".
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Dandekar
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
2. 500 Mountain View Street. AP -PC 111 -14: Appeal of the Director's interpretation
of the Municipal Code in upholding a Notice to Correct regarding use of a
recreational vehicle as a dwelling unit; R -1 -S zone; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant; John Hollowman, appellant. (Erik Berg- Johansen)
Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen presented the staff report, recommending adoption of
the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and supporting the Director's decision to uphold
the citation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Francesca Bonior, representing the property owner, requested a continuance because
the property owner is in India and will be back in three weeks.
Michelle Tasseff, SLO, described the difference between a trailer that is a legal dwelling
unit and one that is not. She stated that the trailer on this property is not a legal
dwelling unit.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Larson noted that the request for continuance would result in a long delay in
dealing with this issue.
Deputy Director Davidson affirmed this and noted that the appellant agreed to have a
representative stand in for him because he knew he would be gone.
Commr. Multari asked why this appeal, filed in April, took so long.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 8
Deputy Director Davidson stated that it was partly the decision of staff due to many
other important issues that had to come before the Commission over the past several
months. He added that this matter was removed from the agenda several times.
Commr. Larson reopened public comment so Ms. Bonoir could speak again.
In response to a question from Commr. Draze, Ms. Bonoir stated that she is a lawyer
and she is familiar enough with the issue to be able to represent the owner's interest. In
response to a question from Commr. Larson, she stated that there is a primary
residence and a currently- unoccupied secondary residence on the property.
Deputy Director Davidson stated he is not sure this secondary residence is permitted
but the owner is allowed to have two residences (one single - family residence, one
secondary dwelling unit) on this property. He stated that a third residence would not be
allowed except with a use permit which would allow multiple dwellings on a large
property of this size without the need for a lot split.
Commr. Draze asked if Ms. Bonoir would have another opportunity to testify at this
hearing. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that she can speak again.
Commr. Larson stated he would have been willing to reopen the public comment period
if appropriate He added that it might make sense to continue the issue but he is
disinclined to uphold the appeal and the way out is to get some kind of use permit
although this vehicle may not be appropriate for that. He stated that there comes a time
to bring operations up to code and he is inclined to uphold the staff recommendation
which would mean the appellant could appeal to the City Council sooner.
Commr. Fowler stated that he feels he does not have enough information.
Commr. Riggs stated he is ready to make a motion.
Commr. Malak stated that this issue is troubling because the trailer fulfills the need of a
homeless person.
Commr. Riggs stated that this was speculation.
Commr. Malak stated that, according to his research, that the trailer used as a
residence before 2012 could not be said to be a non - conforming use but that changes in
the ordinance in 2012 leave him no choice but to deny the appeal.
Deputy Director Davidson stated that he wanted to clarify that he is not implying that all
that is needed is a use permit to legalize the existing RV because that would apply only
to a permanent structure. He added that in 2012 there was a lot of discussion and an
Ordinance about camping on the streets and in the public right -of -way but this situation
is on private property.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 9
Commr. Multari stated he would like to grant the continuance since staff has put the
hearing off previously.
Commr. Draze stated he would like to offer the opportunity to hear from the applicant's
agent.
Commr. Larson reopened public comment.
Ms. Bonoir stated that the applicant's position was that, due to a financial crisis that
brought him within a month of losing his property, he rented out the trailer and did a
refinance. She added that he was asking for a two -year period, long enough to keep his
own property. She stated he was open to whatever options anyone suggests. She
noted that she did not know about the use permit and was not clear on the definition of
RVs as described by Michelle Tasseff.
Commr. Riggs stated that perhaps the refinance and the secondary unit not being
rented implies that the financial hardship no longer exists.
Ms. Bonoir stated that the renter had moved out of the secondary unit.
Commr. Draze asked if the person in the RV could rent the vacant secondary unit.
Ms. Bonoir noted that the rent is double that of the RV.
Commr. Fowler asked what the owner's plan is now if it was originally said to be a two -
year plan.
Ms. Bonoir stated that the owner was open to any option to bring the RV up to code but
it looks like that would have to be about another dwelling.
Commr. Larson stated that clearly use of the RV or trailer as a residence is not
consistent with City code and, even if it was, it would be a third unit. He added that this
has been going on for four years, so he is not too sympathetic.
Commr. Fowler stated that the Commission is trying to find a path, but Ms. Bonoir has
to "give us a bone." He added that this unit is a clear violation.
Commr. Larson noted that, if the Commission goes along with the staff
recommendation, the appellant can always take it to the City Council, but it is time to
resolve this and a continuance would mean more delay. He added that the Commission
does have a reasonable understanding of the appellant's position and situation.
Ms. Bonoir stated that the owner was interested in anything that would move it forward.
Commr. Larson noted that moving forward would be resolving the code violation.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 10
Commr. Riggs stated that the Commission's decision is a code interpretation and he
would like the Commissioners to stop speculating. He stated he wanted to be sure staff
had reached out to the appellant to schedule this.
Assistant Planner Berg- Johansen responded that he had a conversation with the
appellant in which he asked him if the City could move forward without him there and
the appellant agreed to that but a few days later had changed his mind. He added that
the City decided that, with the safety and fire issues, it was best to move forward.
At this point, Commr. Riggs moved to support the staff recommendation with a second
by Commr. Draze.
Commr. Fowler stated that the Commission has tried to solve problems before when it
was about someone struggling with housing. He noted that this is when you go the
extra mile. He supported a continuation.
Commr. Larson stated he understood and appreciated that, but the path forward was to
recognize the code violation and work to correct it.
Commr. Riggs stated that it is not out of a lack of compassion that he is trying to move
this forward but that the Commission has to interpret the code and the primary problem
he has is that some of the facts do not seem to add up, such as the owner going to
India and the secondary unit being unoccupied, so he supports focusing on a code
interpretation.
Commr. Malak agreed and stated that with code violations in 2008, six years ago, there
has been more than enough time to resolve those issues.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Draze, to adopt the Draft Resolution
denying the appeal and supporting the Director's decision to uphold the citation.
AYES:
Commrs. Draze, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES:
Commr. Fowler
RECUSED:
None
ABSENT:
Commr. Dandekar
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
1 1.4.60 Calle Joaquin. USE - 0049 -2014: Review of the establishment of a car wash
in the Tourist - Commercial (C -T) zone including a categorical exemption from
environmental review; Auzco Development, LLC, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the draft
resolution determining that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act, and granting a use permit to allow the operation of
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 11
a car wash in the Tourist - Commercial (C -T) Zone, based on findings and subject to
conditions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Draze stated that this is a wonderful reuse of the building and asked if the roof
equipment will be fixed because the roof looks shabby.
Architect Garcia stated that the intent is to take building shell back to its original design.
There was a discussion of the non - potable well water that will be filtered and recycled to
wash cars. Commr. Fowler noted that there was a problem with that aquifer being over -
drafted which resulted in a compression of the land. Deputy Director Davidson stated
that the Utilities Department developed conditions for this property's water use and
concerns did not rise to a high level about over - drafting the aquifer.
Commr. Riggs noted that this project was not required to go to the Cultural Heritage
Committee. He complimented the applicant for preserving mid - century heritage, and
noted that maybe the CHC will think about districting these parts of our heritage.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to adopt the Draft Resolution
determining that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, and granting a use permit to allow the operation of a car
wash in the Tourist - Commercial (C -T) zone, based on findings and subject to
conditions.
AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Dandekar
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast: December 10, 2014, meeting - appeal of use permit for the
Monterey Hotel, homeless center use permit, and the 2015 -2017 goals.
January 14, 2014 - use permit for a private school academy, and use permit for
a bar /brewery and tentatively the Righetti Ranch /Jones Tract Map in the Orcutt
Area on January 28, 2014, meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 12, 2014
Page 12
5. Commission
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2014.
&AJ.
Lauri Thomas
Administrative Assistant III