Blog: Leveraging a Definition of 'Dwelling Unit'

Dwelling Unit: "one or more rooms in a building designed and intended to be used as living quarters by one person or a family." (Sierra Madre Municipal Code 17.35.040)

My mother lives in an Assisted Living Facility. She refers to her room as "My Apartment."  I told her about the controversy here in Sierra Madre regarding the proposed Kensington Assisted Living Facility. I explained that the developer does not agree with her. The developer says her apartment is really not an apartment or a “dwelling unit” because it doesn’t have a kitchen. 

She sneered and asked "What difference does that make?" She says, “I live here.  I just don’t eat my meals here all the time. Other than that, it's like any other apartment." But sometimes she eats her meals in her apartment. And sometimes she even “cooks” in her apartment by opening a can of soup, warming it in a microwave, and then eating it in her apartment. 

Some other things about her apartment: She receives mail that is sent specifically to her address. Her address is different and distinct from her neighbors. She has her own key. Her aparment is not shared by any other residents.

So what is ambiguous about the definition of a “dwelling unit”? If she isn’t living or dwelling in her unit, than what is she doing in there day after day?

At the Sierra Madre Planning Commission meeting on January 19, the commissioners debated this issue after reviewing the staff report’s proclamation of ambiguity and suggestion to remedy. Ultimately, common sense prevailed.  The commission concluded unanimously that the current definition was not ambiguous.

Commissioner Vandevelde did have a good point however.  A "congregate" living facility is perhaps different enough from an apartment that it may need to be treated differently. But not necessarily for an Assisted Living Facility and not for this project. 

Hanging on what is at best, a miniscule, pin-hole sized ambiguity is 23 dwelling units versus 74 dwelling units. The former is the limit specified in the Voter’s Empowerment Ordinance (A.K.A. Measure V), and the latter is what is proposed for the Kensington project. Again, common sense should prevail. Does anyone believe that the density restriction in Voter’s Empowerment wasn’t intended to apply for a development that would more than double the stated density limit? 

The developer’s calculus baffles me. It appears that they believe that Sierra Madre is comprised of BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).  There are a few of them around, I’m sure, but they are not the majority of Sierra Madreans. Most folks I’ve talked to speak very favorably of the project. They are anxious to see the existing eyesore in the middle of our downtown replaced with the proposed beautiful craftsman-style structure.  They’re also enthused by the prospect of additional revenue flowing into the city’s coffers and excited about the overall boost to the local economy that the project would provide. 

I believe that if the developer submitted the project to a vote of the people as required by Voter’s Empowerment, it would pass by a resounding majority.  However it appears that the developer believes that the path of least resistance is to methodically dismember and dismantle a plain, common understanding of what it means to live somewhere, and to scare up a controversy over the so-called ambiguity to serve their own interests.

Billy Shields, who is the developer’s representative, gave a very nice presentation at the public hearing. He sounded very sincere when he said that he wanted to work with the citizens of Sierra Madre to ensure that the community is happy with the project. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and take his words at face value. 

My advice to Mr. Shields: Work with the people, listen carefully to their testimony at the next public hearing, make appropriate adjustments and do the right thing and submit a ballot proposition so the citizens of Sierra Madre can approve the project per the mandate of the Voter’s Empowerment Ordinance.

Related: