CC 2017-10-10_10a Intro Ord_ADU_Rooftop Decks_Underground Utilities
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: SAM ANDERSON, PLANNING TECHNICIAN
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 17-
002 – AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW; AMENDMENT
RELATED TO ROOFTOP DECKS AND THE
UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES; LOCATION – CITYWIDE;
APPLICANT – CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2017
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Consider modifying City rules for Accessory Dwelling Units, rooftop decks, and
the threshold triggering the requirement to underground utilities.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
No impacts to financial and personnel resources are projected as a result of
adopting the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council introduce the
Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding
accessory dwelling units for compliance with State law as well as rooftop decks
and undergrounding of utilities.
BACKGROUND:
Accessory Dwelling Units
On January 1, 2017, SB 1069 and AB 2299 went into effect, which are intended
to further reduce barriers and streamline approval for the development of new
accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These ADU regulations, among other things,
reduce, and in some cases completely remove, parking requirements, prohibit
local governments from adopting ordinances that preclude ADUs, and make any
local ordinance that does not conform to new State regulations null and void. Due
to this, the City’s regulations are currently not enforceable until they are updated
in conformance with State laws.
Item 10.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 17-002
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 2
Rooftop Decks
On February 21, 2017, the Planning Commission considered a Development
Code interpretation regarding the definition of a “story,” and the applicability of
the Viewshed Review process in respect to the construction of new rooftop
decks. A Viewshed Review permit is required when a “…second-story addition
(is) erected or enlarged on any single-family home within the PD, PS, SF and MF
districts.” The request for interpretation was to clarify whether a new rooftop deck
should be considered a “second story addition” and be subject to the Viewshed
Review process. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to
formulate a directive series of regulations to provide a more clear process for the
construction of rooftop decks without requiring the project to go through the
Viewshed Review process.
Undergrounding Utilities (Service Drops)
On May 25, 2017, the Community Development Director received information
from a local building contractor recommending the City re-examine Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Section 16.68.050.B.1.a, which states “All
projects (discretionary or ministerial) that involve the addition of over one
hundred (100) square feet of habitable space shall be required to place service
connections underground.” It was asserted that, in comparison with neighboring
jurisdictions, the City’s undergrounding requirement was overly onerous, and
prevented investments and minor projects from taking place, impacting both local
residents and the City.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance on August 1, 2017,
and was in support of the proposed Ordinance. The Planning Commission
recommended modification of the undergrounding requirement minimum square
footage trigger from the proposed three hundred (300) square foot minimum to
five hundred (500) square feet, and to seek review of the proposed ADU
ordinance by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) (Attachment 1).
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The proposed Ordinance will amend multiple portions of the AGMC in order to
both bring the AGMC into conformance with State law regarding ADUs and to
address issues raised by the Planning Commission and residents regarding
construction of rooftop decks and utility undergrounding requirements.
Accessory Dwelling Units
The proposed Ordinance will amend AGMC Section 16.52.150 to bring it into
conformance with State law. In general, these regulations include provisions
regarding:
Changing all references to “second residential dwellings” to “accessory
dwelling units;”
Item 10.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 17-002
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 3
Setback modifications for ADUs constructed above garages;
Provisions regarding on-site parking for new ADUs;
Replacement parking when garages or other parking structures are
converted into ADUs; and
Modification to owner occupancy requirements.
The most significant impact to existing ADU regulations are provisions modifying
on-site parking requirements. ADUs constructed within one-half (½) mile of an
existing transit stop, such as a bus stop, cannot be required to provide on-site
parking beyond the currently required two (2) enclosed parking spaces per single
family dwelling (Attachment 2). Additionally, in locations where parking standards
will not be exempted, additional parking shall be allowed to be provided as
tandem parking and may be located anywhere on the property except the non-
driveway front yard setback. When existing garages are converted to ADUs,
replacement parking will still be required but will be able to be provided in any
configuration, such as uncovered or tandem spaces.
Additionally proposed to be modified is a portion of the occupancy requirements
for ADUs. The existing AGMC Subsection 16.52.150.C.8 regarding occupancy
states that “second residential dwellings shall not be offered for sale apart from
the primary residence and shall be occupied on a month-to-month basis or
longer.” In light of the Vacation Rental and Homestay Ordinance approved in
2014, the proposed Ordinance will remove the month-to-month occupancy
requirement in order to allow property owners to rent their ADUs as homestays.
The property owner is still required to record a deed restriction against the title of
the property restricting sale of the ADU apart from the primary residence, and is
still required to occupy one of the dwellings on the premises in any Single-Family
zoning district. Property owners in the Multi-Family zoning districts will not be
required to occupy one of the dwellings on the premises, but will still be unable to
sell an ADU apart from the primary residence. It should be noted that all
changes, besides the modification to owner occupancy requirements, are
mandatory under State law.
AGMC Section 16.52.150 contains a multitude of restrictions on ADUs that are
not addressed by SB 1069 and AB 2299. There is potential for further
modification to the City’s ADU Ordinance including modification to the minimum
lot size or further modification to deed restriction requirements. However, these
modifications are not currently proposed at this time, due to the updates in the
proposed Ordinance being necessary to bring the AGMC into conformance with
State law. Further modifications to the Ordinance may be prepared upon City
Council direction.
Item 10.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 17-002
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 4
In accordance with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, a copy of the
proposed Ordinance was provided to the AIA for review. At this time, the AIA has
not provided any comment.
General Plan
The General Plan, and more specifically the Housing Element, calls for the
construction of secondary (accessory) dwelling units. For example, Policy A.2
states “The City shall continue to utilize the following incentives for the production
of affordable housing: a) allowing secondary dwelling units under specified
criteria…” and program G.1-1 states “The City shall encourage construction
and/or rehabilitation of housing units for low, very-low, and extremely low income
households by… updating the City’s second unit ordinance to reduce barriers to
second units development in residential zone…” The State required modifications
to the City’s ADU Ordinance reinforce these General Plan policies and programs.
Rooftop Decks
The proposed Ordinance will add Subsection 16.48.180 to the AGMC in order to
ensure that new rooftop decks in the City do not unnecessarily or unreasonably
infringe upon the privacy of adjacent properties. The proposed Ordinance also
provides a simpler and clearer path forward for a property owner to construct a
new rooftop deck. The proposed Ordinance provides a series of design
standards to facilitate permitting and plan review. The proposed Ordinance
allows for the construction of a rooftop deck above a single story structure with
the issuance of a Building Permit, contingent upon compatibility with the
proposed design standards. A rooftop deck constructed above a two-story
structure will require the issuance of a Viewshed Review permit prior to Building
Permit submissions due to the more impactful nature created by the viewing
angles of second story rooftop decks.
The proposed Ordinance will reduce the cost of submittal and time invested in
project review for applicants by no longer requiring the Viewshed Review process
and associated processing fee for rooftop decks above a single-story structure.
Additionally, as a result of no longer requiring the Viewshed Review process,
applicants proposing new single-story rooftop decks will no longer be required to
notice neighbors within 300’ of an addition that will likely generate similar viewing
angles to a standard second story addition. The design standards for rooftop
decks are in place to offset the reduction in review of potential privacy impacts
created by elevated construction. These standards include increased setbacks
for decks, access requirements, lighting restrictions, and maximum height.
Item 10.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 17-002
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 5
Maximum height for all residential districts is currently thirty feet (30’) or two (2)
stories, not including properties located in height restricting design overlays.
Mandatory guard rails and other accessory structures and furniture located on
the roof deck will be counted towards maximum height and shall not at any time
be located any further than thirty feet (30’) from the average finished grade of the
home.
The proposed Ordinance is designed to apply only to decks that are proposed to
be located on top of existing structures. A standard deck that extends past the
exterior walls of a structure will not be held to the proposed design standards, but
will be required to obtain a Viewshed Review permit prior to construction if the
proposed project will involve the addition or expansion of a second story.
General Plan
The Land Use Element of Arroyo Grande aims to protect the character and feel
of Arroyo Grande. Policies such as LU12-2.3 state “provide building elevations
that are well-articulated in order to break up building bulk. Incorporate one-story
elements in two-story structures,” and LU12-2.7 states “Use appropriate and
simple roof forms, including shed, gable, and hip roofs, alone or in combination,
to achieve a variety of roof lines along the streetscape; avoid unarticulated flat
roofs.” Undesirable flat roofs can be redesigned into rooftop decks to create a
more interesting and diverse visual aesthetic.
Undergrounding Utilities
The City’s undergrounding requirements are significantly more stringent than
other neighboring communities. Arroyo Grande is the only local community that
requires the undergrounding of utilities for projects involving single-family homes
that were not required to underground utilities at the time of construction. Other
communities, such as San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles, focus on establishing
undergrounding districts that are funded by impact fees collected from
development projects.
The proposed Ordinance will modify AGMC Section 16.68.050.B.1.a, which
currently requires underground service drops whenever an addition of over one
hundred (100) square feet of habitable space is approved to increase the square
footage trigger to five hundred (500) square feet. This change will reduce the
financial burden that can be imposed by undergrounding requirements on minor
additions and other projects. It is important to note that in instances where the
cost of undergrounding is greater than twenty-five percent (25%) of the cost of
the total project, the undergrounding requirement is waived. The five hundred
(500) square foot limit is intended to be flexible enough to allow minor residential
additions but still require undergrounding of utilities as prioritized by the City
Council when the one hundred (100) square foot limit was implemented.
Item 10.a. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 17-002
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 6
General Plan
The Housing and Land Use Elements do not specifically mention the aesthetic
benefits of undergrounding utility lines, but general aesthetic recommendations
found in the Economic Development Element such as ED5-1.4 call for
“infrastructure projects that address deficiencies in commercial corridors [such
as] underground utility projects …” Changing the requirements for
undergrounding utilities could allow for minor additions while still requiring
undergrounding on larger additions, in conformance with the intent of the
undergrounding regulations, which is to “(1) increase the aesthetic appearance of
residential, commercial and mixed use areas by avoiding or eliminating the
concentration of overhead service and distribution facilities, (2) promote the safe
and orderly control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic along streets, roads or
rights-of-way, and (3) provide a coordinated and economical method of placing
existing utilities underground.”
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Introduce the Ordinance as proposed;
2. Modify and introduce the Ordinance; or
3. Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Accessory Dwelling Units
Bringing AGMC Section 16.52.150 into conformance with State law will re-enable
the City to have local control over the establishment and construction of ADUs.
Rooftop Decks
The proposed Ordinance will simplify the process for the construction of a rooftop
deck. The proposed Ordinance will reduce regulatory barriers while establishing
regulations that will provide for orderly and appropriate deck design and, at the
same time, protect the privacy of neighboring properties.
Undergrounding Utilities
The proposed Ordinance will reduce the financial burden created by the existing
AGMC undergrounding requirements, promoting small residential projects.
DISADVANTAGES:
Accessory Dwelling Units
None identified due to State law requirements.
Item 10.a. - Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 17-002
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 7
Rooftop Decks
The current interpretation of the Viewshed Review process requires the issuance
of a Viewshed Review prior to construction of a rooftop deck. This process both
permits a higher level of review over the impacts to the surrounding properties
created by new two-story construction as well as notifying the neighboring
property owners of impending development. Removal of the Viewshed Review
requirement for single-story rooftop decks may potentially lead to an increase in
privacy concerns created by this type of project.
Undergrounding Utilities
Overhead utility lines are typically viewed as a negative aesthetic impact upon
the Cityscape, and reduction of undergrounding requirements will slow the rate at
which this aesthetic issue is corrected. Although the one hundred (100) square
foot limitation is stricter than surrounding jurisdictions in regards to additions to
single-family home additions, waiving of the requirement is common when
reviewing minor additions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Community Development Department has determined that the project is
statutorily exempt per Section 15282(h) of the Guidelines regarding projects
involving the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family
or multifamily residential zone by a city, as well as categorically exempt per
Section 15308 of the Guidelines regarding actions by regulatory agencies for
protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT:
A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune, and posted at City Hall
and on the City’s website on Friday, September 29, 2017. The Agenda was
posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government
Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, two comment letters had
been received.
Attachments:
1. Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 1, 2017.
2. Map showing ½ mile radius of transit stops in Arroyo Grande
3. Correspondence received from Linda Keating
Item 10.a. - Page 7
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH STATE LAW AND ADDITIONALLY ROOFTOP
DECKS AND UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES;
LOCATION – CITYWIDE; APPLICANT – CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”) currently does not regulate rooftop
decks; and
WHEREAS, the City, through the Minor Use Permit – Viewshed Review process, does
regulate similar second story additions with similar impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, unless properly regulated, rooftop decks can
result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that new rooftop decks
constructed in the City conform to the scale and character of the neighborhood in which
they are located and do not unnecessarily or unreasonably infringe upon the privacy of
adjacent properties.; and
WHEREAS, on September 27th, 2016, Assembly Bill (AB) 2299 and Senate Bill (SB)
1069 regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) were signed into law; and
WHEREAS, AB 2299 and SB 1069 became effective January 1st, 2017; and
WHEREAS, AB 2299 and SB 1069 require the City to amend Title 16.52.150 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) for consistency with State law; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance further amends the City’s ADU regulations in order to
comply with AB 2299 and SB 1069; and
WHEREAS, the City currently requires the placement of service connections
underground as part of all projects that involve the addition of over one hundred (100)
square feet of habitable space; and
WHEREAS, the requirement to underground service connections on additions of one
hundred (100) square feet discourages minor projects and investments in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to promote growth and minor projects in the City; and
Item 10.a. - Page 8
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing and recommended the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending the City’s
rooftop deck, ADU, and service connection undergrounding regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 10, 2017
and, after consideration of all testimony and relevant evidence, determined that the
following Development Code Amendment findings can be made in the affirmative
manner:
A. The proposed revisions to Title 16 is consistent with the goals, objectives,
policies and implementation measures of the General Plan, particularly the Land
Use Element, and is therefore desirable to implement the provisions of the
General Plan.
The proposed Development Code Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan by protecting the physical, social, and economic stability and viability of
residential, commercial, industrial, public/quasi-public, and open space uses
within the City, by reducing or eliminating the visual and aesthetic impacts
created by rooftop decks, maintaining the City’s conformance with State
regulations regarding ADUs, and reducing barriers to residential growth.
B. The proposed revisions to Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health,
safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern.
The proposed Development Code Amendment will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern because the
amendments proposed will protect the public welfare by regulating the visual and
aesthetic impacts created by rooftop decks, will bring City ADU regulations into
conformance with State law, and promote the public welfare by reducing barriers
to residential additions.
C. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are consistent with the purpose and intent of
Title 16.
The proposed Development Code Amendment is consistent with the purpose
and intent of Title 16 due to the revisions being made to protect the aesthetic and
physical advantages through the reduction or elimination of visual and aesthetic
impacts of rooftop decks, the protection of the physical and economic stability of
the residential market through conformance with State ADU regulations, and the
protection of economic stability increasing flexibility of residential additions.
D. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed revisions to Title 16 are
insignificant, or there are overriding considerations that outweigh the potential
impacts.
Item 10.a. - Page 9
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
The proposed Development Code Amendment is statutorily exempt per Section
15282(h) of the Guidelines regarding projects involving the adoption of an
ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone
by a city, as well as categorically exempt per Section 15308 of the Guidelines
regarding actions by regulatory agencies for protection, maintenance, and
enhancement of the aesthetic environment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. Subsection 16.52.150 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby
amended in its entirety as follows:
16.52.150 - Accessory Dwelling Units.
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that accessory
dwelling units located in residential districts do not adversely impact either adjacent
residential parcels or the surrounding neighborhood, and are developed in a
manner which protects the integrity of the residential district, while providing for
needed housing opportunities. There are environmental and service constraints the
city faces, which limit the addition of accessory dwelling units. In particular, such
dwellings may not be appropriate on hillside lots because of environmental
constraints. The addition of an accessory dwelling is limited by urban service
capacity, public safety standards, traffic conditions, fire hazards, privacy impacts
and compatibility with neighboring uses and structures. This chapter addresses
these limitations.
B. Applicability.
1. Accessory dwelling units may be permitted in any residential district, subject to
the standards set forth in this section.
2. Accessory dwelling units may be attached to or detached from the main
dwelling, but are not allowed on the second floor above the primary residence
or garage unless approved through the minor use permit – Viewshed Review
process. If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to the main dwelling, each
shall be served by separate outside entrances. The interior wall(s) of an
attached dwelling which separate it from the main unit shall be fire rated
according to the most recent uniform building code. An "attached accessory
dwelling unit" shall mean a dwelling that is either combined within the living area
or attached to the primary residence. A "detached accessory dwelling unit"
shall mean a dwelling that is not combined within or attached to the primary
residence. For the purposes of this chapter, "a dwelling" shall not include a
garage or any accessory structure. "Primary residence" shall mean an existing
Item 10.a. - Page 10
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 4
detached residential structure that conforms with all applicable zoning
regulations.
3. An accessory dwelling unit may be constructed simultaneously with or after
construction of the principal residence. In addition, an existing principal
residence may be considered the accessory dwelling unit, and a new residence
may be constructed which would then be considered the primary residence,
provided the standards set forth in this section are met.
C. Property Development Standards. The accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all
zoning regulations and property development standards of the district in which it is
located, existing building, health, safety and fire codes, and architectural review
criteria, including, but not limited to, setbacks, height limits, floor area ratio, and
maximum lot coverage. In addition, the following standards shall apply:
1. Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size for a parcel to be eligible for an
accessory dwelling unit shall be six thousand seven hundred-fifty (6,750)
square feet, excluding all rights of way and private access easements.
2. Building Separation. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be located a
minimum distance equal to twice the applicable side yard setback from the
primary residence.
3. Yard Setbacks. The accessory dwelling unit shall have the same minimum yard
setback requirements as the base zone of the primary residence on the parcel
as outlined in Table 16.32.050-A and Table 16.32.050-B. Setbacks outlined in
Appendix C.W.D.219 as referenced in Table 16.32.050-B and Table 16.32.050-
A shall not be applicable to second residential dwellings. Accessory dwelling
units constructed above a garage shall have the setback requirements of five
feet (5’) in the side and rear yard, regardless of underlying minimum setback
requirements.
4. Architectural Compatibility. The accessory dwelling unit shall be architecturally
compatible with the primary residence and the surrounding neighborhood, and
shall incorporate the same colors and materials as the primary residence.
5. Maximum Size. Table 16.52.150-A defines the maximum square footage
allowed for an accessory dwelling unit in each residential zoning district. In no
case shall the square footage of an accessory dwelling unit exceed fifty (50)
percent of the square footage of the primary residence.
Table 16.52.150-A
Zoning Designation Maximum Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit
Village Residential (VR) 640 square feet
Single-Family (SF) 850 square feet
Residential Suburban (RS) 1,200 sq. ft. for lots ≥ 12,000; 850 s.f. for lots <
12,000 s.f.
Item 10.a. - Page 11
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 5
Zoning Designation Maximum Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit
Residential Rural (RR) 1,200 square feet
Residential Hillside (RH) 1,200 square feet
Residential Estate (RE) 1,200 square feet
Condominium/Townhouse (MF) 1,200 square feet
Apartments (MFA) 1,200 square feet
Multifamily Very High Density
(MFVH) 1,200 square feet
Mobilehome Park (MHP) Not Permitted (NP)
6. Maximum Slope. The building site upon which the accessory dwelling unit will
be constructed shall not have an average slope in excess of twenty percent. A
topographic map and slope analysis, as recommended by the community
development director, shall be stamped and signed by either a registered civil
engineer, registered architect, or registered landscape architect. Average slope
is defined as follows:
S = I x L × 100
A × 43,560
Where
S = average natural slope, in percent.
I = interval, in feet, of the contour lines.
L = the sum, in feet, of the length of the contour lines, at selected contour interval "I".
A = the total area, in acres, of the site.
7. Parking. A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided for each
bedroom in the accessory dwelling unit, up to a maximum requirement of two
off-street parking spaces, in addition to the off-street parking spaces required
for the main dwelling. Such parking spaces shall be located in close proximity
to the accessory dwelling unit so as to provide convenient access for the
occupant. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking, including on an
existing driveway or in setback areas, excluding the non-driveway front yard
setback.
a. Additional parking shall not be required in the following cases:
i. If the accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile by travelled
distance of an existing transit stop;
Item 10.a. - Page 12
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 6
ii. The accessory dwelling unit is located in the D-2.4 Historic Character
Overlay District;
iii, The accessory dwelling unit is located in a neighborhood where on-street
parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the
accessory dwelling unit;
iv. A car share vehicle is located within one block of the accessory dwelling
unit.
v. The accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing primary residence or an
existing accessory structure.
8. Replacement Parking. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is
demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory
dwelling unit, replacement parking may be located in any configuration on the
same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, as covered
spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical
automobile parking lifts. This requirement shall not apply to projects described
in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.150.C.7.a.
9. Driveway Access. Accessory dwelling units shall be served by the same
driveway access to the street as the primary residence. Properties located on a
corner of two public streets are allowed a separate access from the primary
residence, provided that access for the accessory dwelling unit is from a
different public street than the primary residence.
10. Deed Restriction. A deed restriction shall be recorded against the title of the
property containing an accessory dwelling unit prior to issuance of a building
permit. Such deed restriction shall stipulate that the accessory dwelling units
cannot be sold apart from the primary residence and, within Single-Family
zoning districts, the owner of the property must occupy one of the dwellings on
the premises. The owner occupancy restriction shall not apply to properties
containing accessory dwelling units located in Multi-Family zoning districts.
11. Utility Meters. For any lot zoned for multiple family or single-family uses, the
accessory dwelling unit may, but is not required to, have an electric, gas, or
water meter, or sewer lateral, separate from the primary residence on the
property. Applicable utility and development impact fees for the accessory
dwelling unit will be assessed at the time a building permit is issued, based on
building area and fixtures added.
12. Conditional Use Permit or Minor Use Permit. Any proposed deviation from
these standards shall be processed through a conditional use permit or minor
use permit application as determined by the community development director.
13. Other Conditions.
a. Accessory dwelling units shall be served by city water. Accessory dwelling
units shall be prohibited on lots containing a guesthouse, converted garage,
mobile home, or more than one existing single-family dwelling.
Item 10.a. - Page 13
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 7
b. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with such other conditions or
standards which, in the judgment of the city, are necessary or appropriate to
mitigate possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood.
D. State Law Applicable. The provisions of this section shall be subordinate to and
superceded by the controlling provisions of any applicable state law or laws.
SECTION 3. Subsection 16.48.180 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby
added in its entirety as follows:
16.48.180 – Rooftop Decks
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that new rooftop
decks constructed in the City conform to the scale and character of the
neighborhood in which they are located and do not unnecessarily or unreasonably
infringe upon the privacy of adjacent properties.
B. Definition. Any deck supported by a structure, with no portion cantilevered past the
exterior walls of the structure it exists upon.
C. Applicability. All rooftop decks shall comply with the design standards listed in
subsection (D). Rooftop decks constructed above a second story may be permitted
only with the approval of a Minor Use Permit – Viewshed Review. Rooftop decks
constructed above a single story are exempt from the Minor Use Permit – Viewshed
Review requirement.
D. Design Standards for Rooftop Decks.
1. Side yard setback. If constructed above a second story, the rooftop deck shall
be setback an additional minimum of five feet (5’) from applicable side yard
setbacks.
2. Front and rear yard setback. If constructed above a second story, the rooftop
deck shall be setback an additional minimum of five feet (5’) from applicable
front and rear yard setbacks.
3. Rooftop deck access. Access to the rooftop deck shall be architecturally
integrated into the structure and shall be located in such a way to minimize
visual impact to neighboring properties. Interior access or concealed exterior
access is encouraged.
4. Maximum height. Guards or guardrails as defined in the Building Code shall
be required of all rooftop decks and shall count towards the maximum height
of a structure. Furniture and other accessory items shall also count towards
the maximum height of a structure. Rooftop deck guards and associated
accessory items shall not exceed the maximum height identified in
development standards of the underlying Zoning District.
5. Lighting. Lighting shall be designed to prevent unnecessary or excessive
lighting impacts onto neighboring properties. Rooftop decks with proposed
lighting shall include a lighting plan in submittals demonstrating conformance
with this standard.
Item 10.a. - Page 14
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 8
SECTION 4. Subsection 16.68.050.B.1.a of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
16.68.050 - Underground utilities
B. Applicability.
1. Service Drops.
a. All projects (discretionary or ministerial) that involve the addition of over five
hundred (500) square feet of habitable space shall be required to place
service connections underground.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unlawful, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper
published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the
City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified
copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City
Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the
names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be
published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such
adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the
following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted this ____ day of ______________, 2017.
Item 10.a. - Page 15
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 9
___________________________________
JIM HILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________________
JAMES A. BERGMAN, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
HEATHER K. WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 10.a. - Page 16
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2017
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Commissioner Schiro moved, and Commissioner Mack seconded the motion to
approved Consent Agenda items 7.a. and 7.b., with the recommended courses of action. The
motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Schiro, Mack, Fowler-Payne, Martin
NOES: None
ABSENT: George
7.a. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 18, 2017,
as submitted.
7.b. Consideration Of Time Extension 17-004; One Year Time Extension For Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 04-004 And Planned Unit Development 04-001 (Tract 3086 – Creekside
Complex) In Accordance With The Subdivision Map Act; Location – Adjacent To 415
East Branch Street; Applicant – DB&M Properties, LLC.
Action: Adopted a Resolution entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION (TIME
EXTENSION 17-004) FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 04-004 AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT 04-001 (TRACT 3086 – CREEKSIDE COMPLEX); APPLIED FOR BY
DB&M PROPERTIES, LLC; LOCATION – ADJACENT TO 415 E. BRANCH STREET”.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.b. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 17-002; AMENDMENTS TO
TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ROOFTOP DECKS,
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES; LOCATION –
CITYWIDE; APPLICANT – CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Planning Technician Anderson presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance
regarding rooftop decks, accessory dwelling units, and undergrounding of utilities. Chair
Martin suggested addressing each item separately.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – staff responded to Commission questions/comments
regarding language on restricting vacation rentals for the ADUs; clarified homestays; ADUs to
be used as affordable housing; the number of homestays allowed per block/City; enforcement
of vacation rental and homestays; deed restrictions; the State mandates a large portion of the
Ordinance; mechanism for bringing main home up to code when building ADUs; and parking
requirements for ADUs.
Chair Martin opened the public hearing for public comment.
Linda Keating said the proposal did not include Junior ADUs (JADUS) and stated the State’s
intent is to provide low cost housing, which the City is in need of.
Randy Russom, representing American Institute of Architects California Central Coast, (AIA),
spoke in support of the ordinance and volunteered to meet with staff to share information.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Martin closed the public comment period.
Item 10.a. - Page 17
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4
MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2017
Rooftop Decks – the Commission stated the process will be simplified and spoke in support of
the proposal for rooftop decks.
Undergrounding of Utilities – staff responded to Commission questions/comments including
increasing the minimum square footage from 300 to 500 in order to require placement of the
power pole/service drops underground.
Action: Chair Martin moved to adopt a RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 17-002; AMENDING
TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ROOFTOP DECKS,
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; LOCATION –
CITYWIDE”, as modified under B.1.a. of Subsection 16.68.050 “All projects (discretionary or
ministerial) that involve the addition of over five hundred (500) square feet of habitable space
shall be required to place service connections underground.” Motion died due to lack of a
second.
Commissioner Mack suggested to pull the ADUs from the Resolution in order to discuss the JADU
and stated he would also like to invite AIA’s input.
Action Commissioner Martin moved to adopt the above Resolution and staff meet independently
with AIA to improve or bolster the ordinance on ADUs. Commissioner Fowler-Payne seconded
the motion.
Planning Manager Downing recommended Planning Commission move forward with the resolution
as the JADU has been reviewed, that it is important to bring the City’s existing Code into
compliance with the State, and direct staff to meet independently with the AIA for consistency with
the Five Cities.
Action Commissioner Martin moved to adopt the above Resolution and staff meet independently
with AIA to improve or bolster the ordinance on ADUs. Commissioner Schiro seconded, and the
motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Martin, Schiro, Fowler-Payne, Mack
NOES: None
ABSENT: George
9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
None
10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JULY 18, 2017
This is a notice of administrative decision for Minor Use Permits, including any approvals,
denials or referrals by the Community Development Director. An administrative decision must
be appealed or called up for review by the Planning Commission by a majority vote.
Case
No.
Applicant Address Description Action Planner
ARCH 17-005 The Heights at
Vista Del Mar
Group, LLC
831 Castillo
Del Mar (Lot
3 of Tract
New 4,252 square foot
single family primary
residence and a 1,199
A K. Heffernon
Item 10.a. - Page 18
REGIONAL TRANSIT STOP (RTA)
LOCAL TRANSIT STOP (SCAT)
AREAS WITHIN 1/2 MI OF TRANSIT STOP
POTENTIAL AREAS FOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
THIS MAP DISPLAYS AREAS WITHIN A HALF MILE
OF A TRANSIT STOP IN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL AREAS WHERE ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS COULD BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER STATE LAW.
Created by: Camilla Greenbach, GIS Technician
FIGURE 1
JULY 2017
µ0 0.5 10.25
MILES Item 10.a. - Page 19
Debbie Weichinger
From:
Sent:
To:
Linda Keating •••'9••••• ..
Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:36 PM
Debbie Weichinger
Subject: AG Public Hearing 8/1 Accessory Dwelling Units
Letter to J_Hill.pdf Attachments:
Importance: High
Sent via e-mail to dweichinger@arroyogrande.org and delivered hard copy.
Subject: Public Hearing 8/1--Use of Accessory Dwelling Units for Homestay vacation rentals
Planning Commission Members:
I received a notice that you will be discussing Accessory Dwelling Units at a Public Hearing 8/1. The notice did not
include discussion points. If not included, I would like to propose that you add the issue of the rental use of these
ADUs. Currently, there are three ADUs that are being used as Homestay short term vacation rentals . This conflicts with
the stated purpose and use of these units. But, the city has allowed this to occur.
I have attached a copy of a letter sent to the Mayor and City Manager last month that details the situation. I have also
attached the response from the City Manager.
When Assembly Bill 1866 went into effect in 2003, it made it easier to build Accessory Dwelling Units. An updated ADU
bill went into effect this January that lifted even more restrictions, allowing these units to be created at an even a lower
cost.
The Arroyo Grande Housing Element 2014-2019 document adopted by the City Council as Resolution No. 471S on
3/2016, the City recognized the significance of Accessory Dwelling Units (Formerly Second Residential
Dwelling). Quoting from this d~cument:
• Stated definition of a Second Residential Dwelling.
"In the City's Development Code, second dwelling units are referred to as a "Second Residential Dwellings". A
Second Residential Dwelling is either a detached or attached dwelling unit that provides complete, independent
living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and
sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residence."
• Expressed the importance of Second Residential Dwelling units.
"Second units can be an important source of affordable housing since they are smaller than primary units and
they do not have direct land costs. Second units can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, thus
allowing the elderly to remain in their homes or moderate-income families to afford housing."
• Rental of Second Residential Dwelling units (Arroyo Grande Development Code)
"Shall be occupied on a month-to-month basis or longer. Either primary residence or second residential
dwelling must be occupied by the owner of property."
One major demographic segment effected by the lack of affordable housing is the over SS group -of which I am a
member. According to published data, 3S.7% of the Arroyo Grande population is in this age group. Over the last 10
Item 10.a. - Page 20
years, this group's retirement funds were hit very hard by the recession/market downturn and housing collapse . I have
several friends who had to pull out funds to live at the market low, lost houses and have been forced out of rentals
because they were sold due to the recovery . Unable to find housing, they have moved out of the area or into
temporarily living with family/friends while wait-listed for low-income facilities.
Other local cities (San Luis Obispo and Morro Bay) specifically exclude Accessory Dwelling Units from their Vacation
Rental programs. In fact, I was only able to find one California city with a Vacation Rental policy that permitted the use
of Accessory Dwelling Units as short-term rentals . This was Oakland .
I urge the city of Arroyo Grande to take a responsible position on this issue and encourage the construction of Accessory
Dwelling Units but only for their intended use .
Sincerely,
Linda Keating
-Myrtle Drive
PROVIDE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE SO DEPAERATELY NEEDED-
NOT AFFORDABBLE AIRBNB LODGING
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
2 Item 10.a. - Page 21
July 5, 2017
(Sent via e-mail and USPS)
Mr. Jim Hill
Mayor City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Dear Mayor Hill:
I am writing because of the Airbnb Homestay that is operating across form my property. The unit being rented
was permitted for construction 10/2015 as a Second Residential Dwelling. The Homestay usage of this property
is in direct conflict with the purpose, intended use and standards set forth by the City of Arroyo Grande in its
Housing Element 2014-2019 document for Second Residential Dwelling units.
Additionally, since the Second Residential Dwelling rental unit is NOT an owner-occupied dwelling unit, it falls
outside the definition of a Homestay rental.
.,., To date, there have been three Second Residential Dwellings that have received Homestay permits. It seems
very odd that two of the three are associated with City Council members. One is owned directly by Council
member Caren Ray. Another is owned by the father of Council member Kristen Barneich, Chuck Fellows who
was a former Council member and now a current member of the City's TBID Advisory Board.
Second Residential Dwellings -Definition, Importance and Development Standards
Assembly Bill 1866 (Wright) went into effect on July 1, 2003 making the approval of Second Residential
Dwellings a governmental rather than discretionary process. Which means that a request to build could not be
denied by a local government if the project met the basic State requirements.
In the Arroyo Grande Housing Element 2014-2019 document adopted by the City Council as Resolution No. 4715
on 3/2016, the City recognized the significance of this bill and its intent. (Section attached.) The Housing
Element document did the following:
• Stated definition of a Second Residential Dwelling.
"In the City's Development Code, second dwelling units are referred to as a "Second Residential Dwellings". A
Second Residential Dwelling is either a detached or attached dwelling unit that provides complete, independent
living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and
sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residence."
• Expressed the importance of Second Residential Dwelling units.
"Second units can be an important source of affordable housing since they are smaller than primary units and
they do not have direct land costs. Second units can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, thus
allowing the elderly to remain in their homes or moderate-income families to afford housing."
Item 10.a. - Page 22
• Set Standards for Second Residential Dwelling units.
~ Ir·. -... "-;..a-.11:••'::.J."!:• -·i•••T•Ti o.1.Wl:..J."I. .. -... " . ... .-r-1 --... -
standards S.Cond Residential Dwelling
Shall comply with all zonng regulations and property development standards
of the district ir. wtich it is located.
O.velopment My proposed deviation from standards of Development Code Section standards 16.52.150 (second residential dwelingsJ shall be processed through a
condftional use pem1t or mnor ~e pemit opplicotion as determned by fhe
Communitv Development Direcfor. ~
Minimum Lot Size 6,750sl
MaximumSiz:e 509£. of squore footage of primary residence'
Rental of Unit Sholl be occupied on roonth-to-month bosis or longer. Either primary re9dence
cr second residential dwe11ing must be occupied by owner of property
Building Sepe " Detached second residenlial dwelling -located a mnirrum distance equal to
tlNice the applicable side yard setback from primary residence.
Average SIOF ~\ 20\lb max. ...
Parking 1 space/bedroom [max. 2 spaces)
"Rental of Unit: Shall be occupied on month-to-month basis or longer. Either primary residence or second
residential dwelling must be occupied by owner of property."
Arroyo Grande Vacation Rental Policy
In May 2014, Arroyo Grande modified the city's ordinance to allow permitting vacation rentals. The
modifications defined two types of rentals. The least expensive and easiest to obtain is called Homestay.
Definition: "Homestay" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two (2) short-
term lodging rooms are provided for compensation.
Pertinent Homestay Conditions:
5. The owner shall reside on the premises.
6. Individual guest stays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days with a seven-day period between stays.
Homestay Permits granted to Second Residential Dwellings
To date, three Homestay permits have been granted to properties that are Second Residential Dwellings. All are
being actively advertised on Airbnb. These are:
• PPR 14-008_202 Canyon Way Owned by Council member Kristen Barnich's father Chuck Follows,
(appointed to Arroyo Grande TBID Advisory Board 6/13/2017).
• PPR 15-012-709 Mustang Cir --Owned by Michael Chaney
• PPR 17-001_756 Myrtle St. -Owned by Council member Caren Ray
The advertising for these three units is attached.
Item 10.a. - Page 23
Need for affordable housing is real
Again, quoting the City's Land Use document --"Second units can be an important source of affordable housing
since they are smaller than primary units and they do not have direct lond costs". Attached is a recent article
from The Tribune "Affordable housing tough to find in San Luis Obispo County". I personally have friends who
have been forced out of their long-time rental units because they have been sold to investors . As a result, they
had to move away or in with friends . They are now on long waiting-lists for low-income apartments.
Major cities, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland to name a few are taking aggressive measures to make
it very difficult to operate an Airbnb profitably. These cities all face affordable housing crises. Having investors
purchase low-end units that they rent on Airbnb, is squeezing out the people who really need the units. There is
an attached article describing San Francisco actions . "Airbnb, San Francisco settle lawsuit over short term rental
suit".
I am not asking that any ordinances or laws be altered. I am simply asking that the codes be observed as
intended.
I am requesting that the city of Arroyo Grande immediately stop issuing Homestay permits for Second
Residential Dwellings. Second Residential Dwellings are to be rented on a month to month basis or longer.
If the owner of a Second Residential Dwellings elects to rent a room in the Primary Residential Dwelling as a
Homestay, this could be done. But, the Secondary Residential Dwelling, must be reserved for its intended
use.
I am requesting that all Homestay licenses for the three Second Residential Dwellings be terminated. When
the owners of these properties took advantage of the legislation allowing them ability to construct a Second
Residential Dwelling, they were aware of the intended and permitted use of these units. Especially those who
were/are members of the City Council. Hopefully, these owners will respect the intended use of these
structures and put these Second Residential Dwellings into the rental pool to help provide the affordable
housing this area so desperately needs. This provides the owners income as well as maintaining the character
of the existing neighborhood.
I am also requesting that an investigation be conducted to determine how the Homestay permits were issued
when the language defining a Homestay and the City of Arroyo Grande Development code seems to clearly
prohibit these Dwellings. San Luis Obispo specifically excludes them on the permit form (See attached).
Morro Bay recently voted to exclude them.
Additionally, I would suggest that Arroyo Grande follow the actions that San Francisco has taken with Airbnb
-no license, no listing. If an unlicensed property is listed, Airbnb pays a hefty fine to the City until it is
removed.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda Keating
Myrtle Dr.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
CC: Jim Bergman, City Manager
Heather Whitham, City Attorney
Item 10.a. - Page 24
CLEAN QUAINT WINE-COUNTRY
COTTAGE
Arroyo Grande, CA, United States * * * * * 92 reviews
Entire home/apt 2 Guest!> 18edroom ,,,
About this listing
• Linda And
Chuck
~
1 Bed
Spotless, peaceful cottage w/ private back deck, fire pit, and full kitchen. Walk to
charming, historic village of Arroyo Grande = boutiques, restaurants, bars, bakeries,
coffee houses. groceries & antique shops. Reach aver 200 WINERIES in 45 minutes
Private Guest House-modern
farmhouse design
Arroyo Grande, CA, United States • • • • • 13 reviews
!]
Entire home/apt 4 Guests 1 Bedroom
About this Ii~
Caren
~
2 Beds
Private guest house that's brand new (2017), with modern conveniences and antique
design touches. It's a short easy walk to the historic Village of Arroyo Grande, and a 5
minute drive to area beaches. The guest house is a gorgeous addition to our historic 1 •
farmhouse. The proceeds from your stay will go toward the restoration and renovation of
the main house, so you're contributing to saving a historic landmark! See more by
searching historic rice house arroyo grande.
Beautiful Central Coast
Guesthouse
Arroyo Grande, CA, United States * * * * * 61 reviews
Entire home!apt 8 Guests 3 Bedrooms
About this I~
Mike
~
4Beds
Private, 3 bedroom 1600 sq ft guesthouse in Arroyo Grande, CA (Central Coast) 3 miles
from Pismo Beach. 1st class accommodations close to beaches, wineries, golf,
restaurants, and shopping. Pool/hot-tub, game-room, and laundry. Kids and pet friendly.
Large patio and garden/lawn area. Fully stocked kitchen with everything needed to
prepare and serve meals. Induction style cook tops, plenty of pans, knives, settings, etc.
Coffee maker, crock pot, microwave. Table seating for 8.
Item 10.a. - Page 25
City of Arroyo Grande 2014-2019 Housing Element
Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing
State legislation SB 2 requires jurisdictions to permit emergency shelters without a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or
other discretionary permits, and transitional housing and supportive housing must be considered residential uses and
must only be subject to the same restrictions that apply to the same housing types in the same zone. Programs K.2-1
and K.2-2 are proposed to amend the Development Code to allow emergency shelters without any discretionary review
(by right) in at least one zone and to define transitional and supportive housing as required per SB2.
Secondary Dwelling Units
To encourage establishment of secondary dwelling units on existing developed lots, State law requires cities to either
adopt an ordinance based on standards set out in the law authorizing creation of second units in residentially zoned
areas, or where no ordinance has been adopted, to allow second units if they meet standards set out in the State law.
State law requires ministerial consideration of second unit applications in zones where single-family dwellings are
permitted. Local governments are precluded from totally prohibiting second units in residentially zoned areas unless
they make specific findings (Government Code §65852.2). Second units can be an important source of affordable
housing since they are smaller than primary units and they do not have direct land costs. Second units can also provide
supplemental income to the homeowner, thus allowing the elderly to remain in their homes or moderate-income
families to afford housing.
In the City's Development Code secondary dwelling units are referred to as a "second
residential dwellings". A second residential dwelling is either a detached or attached dwelling unit that provides
complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping,
eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary residence.
Table 5-5 sets out the primary standards for second residential dwellings in the City. The City's standards do not conflict
with State law governing second units. However, having a minimum parcel size requirement for a second residential
dwelling can often be a constraint to developing secondary units.
106
Item 10.a. - Page 26
City of Arroyo Grande 2014-2019 Housing Element
L";t'":v'"""~U..:.;-~ .~_;;~~ ~¥J!:'r;~'""~$~"'r,~,..,,,,,-..,,.~~':"'~~f;l_.~,ez:",,.,f' .. ~:jt'fl1~4+:?~,.."~"~4rlit~.'M~t,~!.!:.a.c"~ ~#~·~4!~':'!'!'"''"' • " ~.
~~--~-: --~·Table S'o7 Sernnd ·Resid~ntial Dwellings.Development Standards . ,~ •
--~_J---~j(--..._ ~~.--.---.-: --~L. _:---..:.~-~·,. _:_~-t_-=__ ,f .,.':_ ____ ._
Standards Second Residential Dwelling
Shall comply with all zoning regulations and property development standards of the district in
which it is located.
Development
Standards Any proposed deviation from standards of Development Code Section 16.S2.1SO (Second
residential dwellings) shall be processed through a conditional use permit or minor use
permit application as determined by the Community Development Director.
Minimum Lot Size 6,7SO sf
Maximum Size 50% of square footage of primary residence 1
Rental of Unit
Shall be occupied on month-to-month basis or longer. Either primary residence or second
residential dwelling must be occupied by owner of property
Building Separation
Detached second residential dwelling -located a minimum distance equal to twice the
applicable side yard setback from primary residence.
Average Slope 20% max.
Parking 1 space/bedroom (max. 2 spaces)
Source: City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
Development Processing and Development Impact Fees
Like most cities in California, Arroyo Grande charges planning, building, and impact fees for residential developments.
Table 5-6 summarizes the planning fees charged by the Community Development Department for processing residential
applications. These fees are established by the City Council to cover the staff and other costs associated with processing
a housing development application. These fees are comparable to other area jurisdictions and not considered excessive.
The fees charged at the time oft he issuance of a building permit for residential development include standard building
permit plan check and inspection fees as well as impact fees set by the City. Building fees are set by the Building Code
and represent the costs for plan review and inspection of the project construction. Given the nature of these fees, they
are not considered excessive in that they are essential to ensure the health and safety of the project construction.
Impact fees cover the costs of infrastructure and public services. Given the current tax structure the City must operate
under, there are not adequate general funds to provide the services and infrastructure necessary for new residential
development, thus development impact fees must be charged to cover the costs of the services or infrastructure
requirements.
107
Item 10.a. - Page 27
High housing costs play a big role in the Central Coast's unaffordability, as underscored by National Low Income Housing
Coalition data released this week. Affordable rental housing -units that cost residents no more than 30 percent of their
income -is tough to find in San Luis
Obispo County and across the country, especially for those working for minimum wage. Joe Johnston
jjohnston@thetribunenews.com
May 27, 2016 8:19 PM
Affordable housing tough to find in SLO County,
California
By Lindsey Holden
It's not easy being poor in San Luis Obispo County. Or even middle class, for that matter. High housing costs play a big
role in the Central Coast's unaffordability, as underscored by National Low Income Housing Coalition data released this
week. Affordable rental housing -units that cost residents no more than 30 percent of their income -is tough to
find in San Luis Obispo County and across the country, especially for those working for minimum wage.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates a fair market two-bedroom apartment averages
about $1,056 in the U.S. A resident would need to earn about $20.30, or $42,240 per year, to afford such housing. The
federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, meaning a worker would have to work about 112 hours per week to
pay for their housing.
In California, where the minimum wage is $10 per hour, the Housing Coalition's study ranks
California as having the third most expensive housing in the country. A resident must earn about $28.59 per hour, or
$59,464 per year, to afford the $1,487 monthly rent for a typical two bedroom apartment. Although the state's
minimum wage is set to go up to $15, the cost of housing still outpaces the jump in salary.
SLO County's rental housing costs more than in most other areas of the country, but it still costs residents less than
those living in the famously expensive San Francisco Bay Area. SLO County residents need a job paying about $25.19 per
hour, or $52,400 per year, to rent a $1,310-permonth two-bedroom apartment, which makes SLO County the 17th most
expensive county in California.
In Marin County -the most expensive county in California -residents must earn $44.02 per hour, or $91,560 per year,
to afford the typical $2,289-per-month rent for a two-bedroom apartment.
Even so, young professionals juggling student loans with rent and other monthly expenses find it tough to eke out a
living in SLO County.
Ray Scott, a physical therapist assistant, said he and his wife are preparing to move in with family in the Bay Area
because they can't afford to live in the area and pay rent on their own. They pay about $1,100 per month to live in a
guest house in San Luis Obispo, which he said is hard to manage, especially because his wife wants to go back to school.
"As far as wages versus rent, it's just not sustainable," Scott said.
Even though SLO County isn't the priciest place to live in California, its highly competitive housing market makes a
decent apartment hard to find. The countywide vacancy rate is 1.7 percent, said Scott Smith, executive director of the
Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo. A healthy vacancy rate is about 5 percent, Smith said.
Item 10.a. - Page 28
"It's a supply issue," said John Fowler, president of nonprofit Peoples' Self-Help Housing.
Smith said affordable housing is important to consider because it affects employers as well as residents. It's hard to
convince both professionals and minimum wage earners to work in an area with such high rents, Smith said.
HASLO helps low-income residents with housing subsidies and builds affordable units throughout the county. People's
Self-Help does similar work as a private nonprofit in SLO, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties .
Fowler said he's seen some area officials push back against building more housing, especially due to concerns about
water and limited resources. Even so, he said it's possible to balance such concerns with the need for housing.
Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article8050735 7 .html#storylink=cpy
Item 10.a. - Page 29
Airbnb, San Francisco settle lawsuit over short-term rental law
By Heather Somerville and Dan Levine I SAN FRANCISCO
Airbnb Inc and the city of San Francisco have settled a year-long lawsuit over a local ordinance forbidding the home-
rental company from taking bookings from hosts who have not properly registered their homes.
The settlement, which Airbnb announced during a call with reporters on Monday, marks the latest effort by the
company to compromise with cities and improve its relationship with regulators globally as it eyes an initial public
offering. Airbnb is an online marketplace for shortterm lodging, with "hosts" who rent their homes in 65,000 cities.
City officials across the globe have sought to minimize Airbnb's impact on tight housing supplies and rental costs,
sparking legal fights with the company, which has argued that, as an Internet platform, it is not responsible for the
listings on its website.
As part of the settlement with San Francisco, where Airbnb is headquartered, the company will create a registration
system requiring that anyone in the city who wants to rent room or house on Airbnb must first supply their name,
address and zip code, said Airbnb global policy chief Chris Lehane. Only after registering can hosts list their homes for
rent.
"Every host on the Airbnb platform will be registered, which is what the city has said it will be looking for," Lehane said.
The company will turn over host registration information to city officials. The city last year enacted an ordinance,
sparking the lawsuit, making it illegal for Airbnb to collect fees for providing booking services for rentals that had not
been properly registered. Airbnb makes money by charging a service fee on bookings.
Airbnb's new registration system, expected to roll out in early 2018, will not prevent hosts that are not compliant with
city laws from registering, meaning there could be a lag period during which illegal hosts can rent out homes before city
officials identify them. San Francisco limits each host to one rental unit and caps the number of nights a unit can be
rented.
Airbnb will also deactivate listings ifthere is an invalid registration, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a
statement. Currently, there are 2,100 registered short-term rental hosts in San Francisco, but Airbnb has more than
8,000 listings in the city.
Herrera called the settlement "a turning point when it comes to enforcement."
The settlement must still be approved by the San Francisco mayor and board of supervisors. Airbnb has similar
registration systems in the works in Denver, New Orleans and Chicago.
In a statement, Mayor Ed Lee said the settlement "protects our rental housing stock while allowing residents who follow
the rules to gain income to help make ends meet."
The settlement is the latest evidence that Airbnb has lessened its long-standing resistance to turning over data to city
officials . In his remarks , Lehane also indicated that Airbnb has backtracked somewhat from its previous argument that
any city rules to limit listings published on its website violated a broad federal law that protects internet companies from
liability for content posted on their platforms.
"We fundamentally do believe that platforms need to take responsibility," Lehane said.
Airbnb still has ongoing litigation in Miami and Santa Monica, California.
(Reporting by Heather Somerville and Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Marguerita Choy)
Item 10.a. - Page 30
~ City of San Luis Obispo
~ Homestay Permit
Community Development Department -919 Palm Snet. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 (805] 781-7110
Ftease pnnt dellrlf or type ~ 1t11s ~tam wltt ~r S __ ;iipflllellllcr.i ~ Tl'Js 1alm ¥.II te yaur pl!l'l'l'll when lllliJIV\oecl In
&Orne <a&es !l'Oll ~ hi-'! u. ~ v.tlh addCIOria.I c~1kll'I!
NOTE ~Ble propell!'t r~IQtllJ """' ai; ~ ~kJfl& or~. C0-'@11i8111&. aoo Re&1ncllofta (~'&) C1f ~!I· a85«1111Klll8 ""*' rei1100: OI ~DC llCf"le&IBr& e'len fl Mh llW Ill 81D\Wll er, Cl~ Aegi118llO'l9 ARllCBll!t ... ~ llCl ~ complal!Ci' """.eR¥
JqlfEll~ pm!R ~Ucm belllre 11ppf'l"1 ICI' cty awin"&I .
Bus111GSS
App11ca111 --------------Mame (cpbo1111): _______ Phone ----
Address· __________________________ l.oAB:~--------
This ll!Sldence ts a tAcble 1-brne C Yes C kc a Candcmntn 0 Yes 0 tfo ., a Ml::meiw.n!!r's Assooabnn C ..-es C Na
Requirements for Approval
Plannlnu AppllcatiDfl:
c c~ plpnan!l O!pplalim1
2 ll111lness UollllH & hz Cfitlftua:
w c~ Bu&~ Lic«iee & r~ ce..itcste-
;apph::Jltlcn
3 Verillc.nor1 of 0-,.r Oaa1.1p.ioy:
Tiie ope<alor or ~ holl1ill6Wp mul4 ()l'01tdeo ....eorrkatlon ttlil
ft aawtudr permllled dwelllll!J unil is Iha. pmnsy rHdence
and le occupltd by l!lietn ror lhe 11\iP Po'UOf\ of fl& ~ew
Please nd11de a CDp'f Qf ttie Hr:meGIM'lel"S Pqierty Tn
E:emphcm 11L llie ~ property If the ~ is unable
kl ~or.ilcle Yl'lil rilo1TM110n, ~ conaun-. Pla!Vlng 91BIT
tar Ollller ;nppropruue dztcymentabcn
c CQllli or ~eowr'W!rs Plt'J*IY Ta• Elltlfllo.P110n 111 the
u,ecr. pnllpL!Sly
Cl Olher dx:umenl*rl please speci!r.
4 A11p0ftslbl1 Party:
Tiie opeil~ of !he hct'llB&li~ ~ p-O'tde th& l'lill:'l'le and
07Rllc1 nfarmallon d a responsible r-t)' rt 1he 01'lne1-.
occupier ink~ N or 3tle rre, llOt be on f'le llf•ml9M -11 °" hmee dJJlllG IN tlome&tiJtii Nintal A Rnoooslble Piltf 1& ii
perscn ~n years fi zige ar defer WlhCJ IS des~mG by
t'tt a~ or 11\e llfOp&rtp ae <1 po"1 or ~ f(ir' Ille
h:lnu:s~ rental in the ~the Olllll~.oa:uptef is nnt Cl"I the
pn::iperty al ad mies dWTig the rertll Ill anSMf far !hi!
ma'118iwn ~ IN ~ alllt cOOCIUCt lll1d actt1 or
hcmlestl>j guesa ~ te5pCftlible plllly's cqnlac1 inlDrmllban
mufl bot f.i'll\'~ Ir> l'lolllealB" llliMl8 sncl <ld.lacenl
ne~bors
C 08&10ft8t~ raep.JMlble pell)'
~arne ~-~-------------A'tOne ______________ _
Add~ --------------~ 5 PllUflg:
Open1Dis Vlill mairuan lit least one (1) cn.seie cusll:mer
pafklog ~ r. 1111dl.l01\ 'IO IMI requued resllle<N pailelflg.
?aitang in a dnveW'a!i lh2lt has 11 mnl!IU'l1 depltl af 20 teet •°"' Ille bactc or 'Sidewall; <inct .a made ~able ~ ~
d111111g h~ 1~ snat meet 1tie oMnt>on ()1 it oanono
Sp.llCZ
6. S.Plan.:
!:I Site i:dan ind~: proper!)' hnes. buhbng tror plan
rdl:ilbng mcrns Ill be rslled; drns!a:ns af all pwied
palklna tpi)C@fl\ ior.111100 of recy~lillJ aniJ 1eM@o «l'llalJlef&;
any fll1llXISed im~ ;nlia-dl!mi:Umis leg wt1lls.
faflcea, elltellor ...,._ paf11111a all«'9J
7 o.htt ~ICILIRmMtt:
a Cal"ltad: 1nlDrmaban l'cr the property 0''*11er arid
'Kp.:osjbkl pilrt)' mu91 be prCMded '° ~ ~
<I/Kl ~ llill;hboffl
II At al limte w.wi • llomtSIWit l'el'llal 18 oc~. Ille
Ompl!rly ll'MN!r or ~nsllle party in.at ba 11oithin 11
'f41leen.flWlllle 411¥8 or lhe llfOpef'f!t ilnll awatablll -..a
teleptiooe ~r11Y·to11r l"Qors a dt!PJ, &eW!n Cla'IS a ...-,
'IO resp:ind ID CDll\llal:ts regdirlg the hamestay
c ~llftleStlly rerias shll41 mrnplr Wlll1 the pmJlelt)'
derH1lopmeoc jincJ l)e'fet~ &r.andar<:t' •ned tn
Ch~I& ,7 t 8 ..:I H ,g or !tie San l\11& ObiflPo
t.tuniapil Code
d All l!Uldng ;:ind 6re caire regablillflS shlfl be met
I! T'2 nt1ml:B' d mernight IJJ!5s snal be li'TrtJed tit ltu
acluhs ;u!d bedtaana stlld meet ltle rn111mim ss;re
·0:~111>01€<'1:$ a.;. o.;.r~ 111 uie toa•1J1og c~
Cl
ocx::q:lll!d d ... 'ello;i 11nit an lhl! ~
0 ~ rtPQla •e nDt Pllffllllled IP gue&t hOu5e6 OI
q-J~!rt~~
" -~tsemenls 1
bur.~ llO&ntie l'UTiber on-w ad\le"6lnll d the
L'lom@6tay iB pfl:f'libtt!d
APPUCANT I Ulld@rstiWld ~ II'. Jl4l'lltl I& 19811416, I must meet
'Ille RlqUllenll!nts Isled aba\le It ~ RlqUirements are net met
tile poafTllll 11111 ba V-OK! Bn4 IP'le tr~ '1lll81 c&aM Im~.
Date: Item 10.a. - Page 31
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 10.a. - Page 32