03/15/2006: "Getting Tough On Allowing Guest Houses"

As advertised, the CC held their first work session on the PC (Planning Commission) draft of the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) ordinance, but all that was accomplished was for the CC to give a good impression of where they may be headed once they spend some time reviewing it, and coming up with a final draft to present to the public for comment.

All three Councilmen praised the work of the PC, Ranker calling it a "very thorough job" and stating that while "the PC is a diverse group, they came together with a very strict ordinance", to which Myhr said "this is closer to where we want to be in this county, while still allowing ADUs". Both Myhr and Ranker may have been unaware that the Planning Commission vote was split, and that they "came together" by the majority out voting the minority, on a majority of the motions.

Chairman Lichter asked the staff if the PC presented their work as a solution to protecting the SJC environment, and meeting the orders of the GMB (Growth Management Board) order, and was told by staff that since the draft prohibited free-standing ADUs except in urban and activity centers, it should be acceptable to the GMB. Ranker opined that the PC position is "much stricter than what the County Council put forth". And indeed it is, going beyond what was required by a GMB order, which simply required the County to address free-standing ADUs in the rural areas, and on those lands that have been designated as resource lands. Lichter said that he "admired the work done by the PC, and that he agreed with the comments made by his fellow Councilmen.

(continued from front page)
As for the work session, Ranker told Ron Henrickson, the new director of the Community Development and Planning department, that having only just received the draft report from staff, he was unable to take part in a work session until he had had time to fully review it. It was agreed by the Council to set a new date for a work session, and then to hold a public hearing. Myhr cautioned that the clock was ticking on both the deadline from the GMB and the Appeals Court. He suggested that the Council should move quickly toward reaching the end of the process.

Myhr's concern results from the Council's intent to resolve the issue of ADUs before, and in case, the Court of Appeals should come back with an opinion the County had originally asked the court for, but now fear that they may be unhappy with the results -and based on the draft ordinance the Council hammered out with the Friends, and the tightening up of it by the PC, it appears that "un-happy" may within this context be simply defined as having the court rule in favor of the County; since a ruling in favor of the County would not be as restrictive as the direction the Council appears to be moving toward.

The PC draft would prohibit free standing ADUs, and only allow them when

"attached to the principal residence by a common wall, or a continuous roof and exterior wall enclosures, or a continuous roof the area of which is include in the living area of the ADU".

While Myhr said the ordinance would still allow ADUs, Ranker responded by pointing out that outside of the urban and activity areas, freestanding ADUs can only be built if a property is already designated for two houses, so that one could have a house and an ADU (a guest house), but one could have two large houses in any case. Director Henrickson agreed that was correct.

A hot-button that was not addressed was the issue of ADU rentals. Should the County allow ADU's to be rented, and if so, should there be a prohibition on the short time renting (the so-called Transient Rental) of ADUs? One of the stated goals of allowing and encouraging the construction of ADUs is to provide rental units. The Planning Commission had decided not to consider the issue.

In the absence of detached guest houses, and by also not allowing them to be attached to accessory buildings, such as a barn or a shop, or even a detached garage, there may be an increased push to build more low income housing (which in San Juan County may -ironically- skip over density issues and build multiple units in residential neighborhoods). The private sector may also now see an opportunity to build more apartment buildings to supply the need for housing.

A tentative date of April 4th was selected as the next work session, with a public hearing to be held in the near future.